R.I. Gen. Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-4

Exemptions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the department of business regulation or other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.

(b) For actions brought by the attorney general, the exemption in subsection (a) applies only if the person claiming the exemption shows that:

(1) The person’s business activities are subject to regulation by a state or federal agency; and

(2) The activity or conduct is in compliance with orders, including insurance bulletins, or rules of, or a statute administered by, a federal or state government agency.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A. (2004) ri · cites it 13× “I would join the high courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the majority of such courts in other states that have refused to exempt national banks from their state's unfair and deceptive trade practices act and hold that G.L.1956 § 6-13.1-4 [13] does not exempt the defendant…”
State of Rhode Island v. Piedmont Funding Corp. (1978) ri · cites it 7× “The trial justice held that the transactions which were the subject of the complaint are exempted from the provisions of the Act by §6-13.1-4. The action arises out of the sale of a leverage funding program in Rhode Island by defendant, Piedmont Funding Corporation.”
Park v. Ford Motor Company (2004) ri · cites it 4× “” Section 6-13.1-4. 2 The provisions of the DTPA evince an intent to forego the general jurisdictional amount for Superior Court to facilitate joining claims when other claimants are similarly injured.”
Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates (2001) ri · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the trial justice properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact existed for any of the plaintiffs three claims.”
In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (2004) med “” R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-4. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has ruled that this provision exempts from the RIDTPA’s coverage “all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.”
Long v. Dell, Inc. (2009) ri ““Specifically, the exemption contained in § 6-13.1-4 of the DTPA provides: ‘Nothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the department of business regulation or other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory…”
Lynch v. Conley (2004) ri · cites it 3× “1-7 of the act vest the Attorney General with the authority to investigate and prosecute any person whom the Attorney General has reason to believe may be involved in any prohibited activity.”
Perron v. Treasurer of the City of Woonsocket (1979) ri · cites it 2× “Further, the Act makes it clear that its prohibitions are far reaching because they apply to the “advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing…”
Rob Levine & Associates Ltd. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2014) rid · cites it 2× “In the Stratford Complaint, the attorneys moved to dismiss the "Deceptive Trade Practice Class Action” count on the basis that such claims are exempt under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-4 because attorney advertising is otherwise regulated.”
Gale v. Value Line, Inc. (1986) rid · cites it 2× “Section 6-13.1-4 exempts “actions or transactions” permitted under laws administered by any regulatory body of the United States.”
Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc. (2002) ri “Finally, the plaintiffs maintain that the trial justice erred in finding that Crystal’s regulation and oversight by the board exempted the defendants’ activities from the provisions of chapter 13.”
Roberts v. Fleet Bank (R.I.) (2003) ca3 “However, the Act specifically states that “[njothing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the department of business regulation or other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.