R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-2-16 (2026)

Jurisdiction of motions for new trial and extraordinary writs

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The superior court shall have jurisdiction of such motions for new trials as may be provided by law, and concurrently with the supreme court shall have jurisdiction of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, and informations in the nature of quo warranto.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005). · cites it 4× “*229 Although, pursuant to § 8-2-16, [7] the Superior Court is vested with concurrent jurisdiction with this Court to hear any proceeding upon a writ of quo warranto or an information in the nature of quo warranto, such claims seek to enforce a public right and the relief it…”
State Ex Rel. Webb v. Cianci, 591 A.2d 1193 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 2× “Such a petition in equity rests on an entirely different basis from petitioner's common-law petition for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto. And although the petition before us does not conform to the provisions of § 10-14-1, we shall nevertheless…”
Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 2× “Jurisdiction of this Court The respondent argues that this case should have been brought in the Superior Court, since that court by statute has concurrent jurisdiction of the prerogative writ of quo warranto and also concurrent jurisdiction of an information in the nature of quo…”
Chariho Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. Gist, 91 A.3d 783 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 2× “See G.L.1956 § 8-2-16 ("The [S]uperior [Cjourt * * * concurrently with the [Sjupreme [Cjourt shall have jurisdiction of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, and informations in the nature of quo warranto.”
Fargnoli v. Cianci, 397 A.2d 68 (R.I. 1979). “Due to legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 1891, authorizing the use of a petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto, there is no necessity for the intervention of the attorney general because such a proceeding may be instituted by one who claims title to the…”
Washington High. Dev., Inc. v. Bendick, 576 A.2d 115 (R.I. 1990). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 8-2-16 to issue this extraordinary writ in an appropriate case.”
Gormally v. Cannon, 383 A.2d 582 (R.I. 1978). “Thus, we address ourselves to the question of whether damages are recoverable in a civil action for mandamus.”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust v. Neronha (D.R.I. 2023). · cites it 2× “G.L. 1956 § 8-2-16. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss.”
McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 1292 (R.I. 2005). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, pursuant to G.L. § 8-2-16, the Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court over the writ of quo warranto and an information in the nature of quo war-ranto.”
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.