R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-15-5
Presentment to council of claim or demand against town
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who has any money due him or her from any town or city, or any claim or demand against any town or city, for any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever, shall take the following method to obtain what is due: The person shall present to the town council of the town, or to the city council of the city, a particular account of that person’s claim, debt, damages, or demand, and how incurred or contracted; which being done, in case just and due satisfaction is not made to him or her by the town or city treasurer of the town or city within forty (40) days after the presentment of the claim, debt, damages, or demand, the person may commence his or her action against the treasurer for the recovery of the complaint.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: United Lending Corp. v. City of Providence
United Lending Corp. v. City of Providence (2003)
“The city’s defense to this claim is grounded in G.L.1956 § 45-15-5; 6 the city contends that by failing to make a presentment to the city council, plaintiffs complaint was not properly before the court.”
Ims v. Town of Portsmouth (2011)
“On December 10, 2004, plaintiff, in accordance with G.L.1956 § 45-15-5, notified the Portsmouth Town Council of his forthcoming suit and all anticipated claims therein.”
Mesolella v. City of Providence (1986)
“1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-15-5; (2) in refusing to limit Mesolella’s damages to $50,000 under the provisions of G.”
Panzarella v. Boyle (1975)
“The defendants collectively have filed a motion to dismiss, contending that: (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant Smithfield School Committee (“the Committee”) and each of its members, also individually named as defendants; (2) plaintiff’s action is premature…”
Q.C. Construction Co. v. Verrengia (1988)
“While Rhode Island law does not explicitly provide a procedure for securing just compensation for a temporary taking of property by regulation, § 45-15-5 establishes a means through which one owed money by a municipality can obtain redress.”
Perez v. Town of North Providence (2017)
“Failure to File a Claim with the North Providence City Council The Town next claims that R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-15-5 requires Lt. Perez to present her claims before the North Providence Town Council before filing suit, which she failed to do.”
Provost v. Finlay (2001)
“the eve of trial to file its dismissal motion based upon the affirmative defense of lack of timely notice, the town’s delay unduly prejudiced her, The notice requirement in § 45-15-9(a), entitled “Notice of injury on highway or bridge — Commencement of action,” provides in…”
Bennett v. Napolitano (2000)
“On September 20, 1994, plaintiff apparently filed a timely notice 1 of his injury with the city and a claim for compensation for his injuries against the city, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 45-15-5. 2 When plaintiffs claim was not satisfied within forty days of the presentment of his…”
Root v. Providence Water Supply Board (2004)
“It also urges us to reverse the judgment against the city because plaintiffs failed to notify the city council, pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-15-5, of their claim against the city for damages.”
Lanmar Corp. v. Rendine (1993)
“G.L. § 45-15-5, which requires persons seeking monetary compensation from a city or town to present their claim to the town or city council at least 40 days before commencing a lawsuit.”
D'Ambra v. City of Providence (1998)
“While Rhode Island law does not explicitly provide a procedure for securing just compensation for a temporary taking of property by regulation, § 45-15-5 establishes a means through which one owed money by a municipality can obtain redress.”
First Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Providence (2003)
“Alternatively, the city argues, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 45-15-5, [8] that it is not responsible to reimburse the defendant/purchasers herein because they failed to file a claim for monetary relief.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.