(a) The superior court shall have original jurisdiction of all actions at law where title
to real estate or some right or interest therein is in issue, except actions for possession
of tenements let or held at will or by sufferance; and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction of all other actions at law in which the amount in controversy shall
exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and shall also have concurrent original
jurisdiction with the district court in all other actions at law in which the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) and does not exceed
ten thousand dollars ($10,000); provided, that the plaintiff shall not recover costs
unless he or she shall recover in such action not less than five thousand dollars
($5,000), or unless the action is one in which the title to real estate or some right
or interest therein is in question, or unless in the discretion of the court, on motion,
costs are awarded. If an action is brought in the superior court which is within the
jurisdiction conferred by this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction
of all other actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, provided the
other actions are joined with the action within the jurisdiction conferred by this
section or are subsequently made a part thereof under applicable procedural rules.
(b) The superior court shall also have concurrent original jurisdiction, with the probate
courts, of the change of names of those persons eighteen (18) years of age or older
who have been convicted of any misdemeanor or felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case:
Park v. Ford Motor Co., 844 A.2d 687 (R.I. 2004).
Park v. Ford Motor Co., 844 A.2d 687 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 10× “The hearing justice dismissed the complaint for lack of subject- *689 matter jurisdiction under G.L.1956 § 8-2-14. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not…”
Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Fleet also argued that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs were unable to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement set forth in G.L.1956 § 8-2-14. [3] The motion justice denied Fleet's motion, concluding…”
Sartor v. Coastal Resources Mgmt. Council, 542 A.2d 1077 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 5× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 8-2-14. 8 That provision gives the Superior Court original jurisdiction of all actions at law where title to real estate or some interest therein is at issue.”
Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The defendant contended that plaintiffs complaint did not satisfy the $5,000 jurisdictional requirement in G.L.1956 § 8-2-14 because the maximum difference between the expected surrender value and actual surrender value was only $3,500.”
Carvalho v. Coletta, 457 A.2d 614 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 5× “The trial justice granted defendant’s motion solely on the jurisdictional issue and held that plaintiff could not include punitive damages in determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy and therefore did not meet the minimum amount required by G.”
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Before this Court, defendants acknowledge, and we agree, that the trial justice correctly found that the thirty-nine underlying cases meet the jurisdictional requirements of G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14 6 and the venue provisions of G.”
Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14(a) (the Superior Court has jurisdiction over all actions at law in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court in those actions at law in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000 but is less…”
Dana Gallop v. Adult Corr. Institutions, 182 A.3d 1137 (R.I. 2018).
· cites it 2× “However, the trial justice and both parties incorrectly identified the issue in this case as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Cole v. Charron, 477 A.2d 959 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 6× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 8-2-14, as amended by P.L. 1981, ch. 215, § 1, which confer upon the Superior and District Courts concurrent jurisdiction to consider controversies in which the amount sought exceeds $5,000 but does not exceed $10,000.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Etta E. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860 (R.I. 2014).
· cites it 2× “General Laws 1956 § 8 — 8—3(a)(2), provides that the District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of “[a]ll actions between landlords and tenants pursuant to chapter 18 of title 34 and all other actions for possession of premises and estates * * In addition,…”
Park v. Ford Motor Co., 928 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 5× “II The plaintiff additionally contends that the hearing justice erred in not exercising ancillary jurisdiction over plaintiffs other claims pursuant to G.L.1956 § 8-2-14. 3 We disagree with that statute-based contention, but it is further our opinion that ancillary jurisdiction…”
Wayne DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 A.3d 616 (R.I. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14(a), the Superior Court “shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all other actions at law in which the amount in controversy shall exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) * * *.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-2-14(a) — 8 cases
Park v. Ford Motor Co., 844 A.2d 687 (R.I. 2004).
“The hearing justice dismissed the complaint for lack of subject- *689 matter jurisdiction under G.L.1956 § 8-2-14. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not…”
Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2009).
“See G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14(a) (the Superior Court has jurisdiction over all actions at law in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court in those actions at law in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000 but is less…”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Etta E. Malinou, 101 A.3d 860 (R.I. 2014).
“General Laws 1956 § 8 — 8—3(a)(2), provides that the District Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of “[a]ll actions between landlords and tenants pursuant to chapter 18 of title 34 and all other actions for possession of premises and estates * * In addition,…”
Wayne DeMarco v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 A.3d 616 (R.I. 2014).
“Pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14(a), the Superior Court “shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all other actions at law in which the amount in controversy shall exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) * * *.”
Park v. Ford Motor Co., 928 A.2d 469 (R.I. 2007).
“II The plaintiff additionally contends that the hearing justice erred in not exercising ancillary jurisdiction over plaintiffs other claims pursuant to G.L.1956 § 8-2-14. 3 We disagree with that statute-based contention, but it is further our opinion that ancillary jurisdiction…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-2-14(b) — 1 case
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.