R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-20 (2026)

Writs and other process against unknown defendant

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever the name of any defendant or respondent is not known to the plaintiff, the summons and other process may issue against him or her by a fictitious name, or by such description as the plaintiff or complainant may select; and if duly served, it shall not be abated for that cause, but may be amended with or without terms as the court may order.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Westfall v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Metro. Talc Co., 571 F. Supp. 304 (D.R.I. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Westfall v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Metro. Talc Co., 571 F. Supp. 304 (D.R.I. 1983). · cites it 32× “Plaintiff’s penultimate argument is that by naming a John Doe Corporation in his original complaint, pursuant to R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-5-20, he tolled the statute of limitations.”
Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012). · cites it 7× “On October 21, 2009, the trial justice— who agreed to treat defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment — issued a decision in defendants’ favor.”
Souza v. Erie Strayer Co., 557 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 1989). · cites it 11× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-5-20. The amended complaint alleged that B.”
Sousa v. Casey, 306 A.2d 186 (R.I. 1973). · cites it 11× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §:§9-5-20 1 and 9-1-12, 2 against “ * * * John Doe, John Smith, John Jones, et al.”
Swiss v. Eli Lilly & Co., 559 F. Supp. 621 (D.R.I. 1982). · cites it 9× “R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-5-20 provides: Whenever the name of any defendant or respondent is not known to the plaintiff, the summons and other process may issue against him by a fictitious name, or by *625 such description as the plaintiff or complainant may select; and if duly served,…”
Dawn M. Parrillo v. Rhode Island Hosp., 202 A.3d 942 (R.I. 2019). · cites it 3× “For example, G.L. 1956 § 9-5-20 allows plaintiffs to "toll an applicable statute of limitations against a known but then unidentifiable defendant * * * by designating that unidentified defendant by means of a fictitious name, such as John Doe.”
Hall v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 727 A.2d 667 (R.I. 1999). · cites it 2× “A Superior Court motion justice thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of RGB holding in part that Hall’s failure to- avail himself of the provisions of G.L.1956 § 9-5-20 (permitting the naming of “John Doe” defendants) precluded RGB from being joined in Hall’s second…”
Grossi v. Miriam Hosp., 689 A.2d 403 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 2× “General Laws 1956 § 9-5-20 permits a plaintiff to toll an applicable statute of limitations against a known but then unidentifiable defendant at the time of the filing of a civil action by designating that unidentified defendant by means of a fictitious name, such as John Doe.”
Hall v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 666 A.2d 805 (R.I. 1995). “Thereafter, on April 20, 1989, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he added as a party defendant the Insurance Company of North America.”
Dolores Voccola v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC v. Xpress Sweeping, Inc., 209 A.3d 558 (R.I. 2019). “The plaintiff's complaint also named "John Doe" as a defendant pursuant to General Laws 1956 § 9-5-20 ; however, the record does not indicate whether plaintiff ascertained "John Doe's" identity.”
Person v. Coyne-Fague, No. 1:22-cv-00043 (D.R.I. Oct. 7, 2022). · cites it 12× “15(c) and to add two additional “John Doe” Defendants pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-20. II. The Relation Back Doctrine – Fed.”
Lisa Garant v. Michael E. Winchester, 150 A.3d 606 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 9× “The hearing justice determined that G.L. 1956 § 9-5-20, which permits a plaintiff who does not know a defendant’s name to use a fictitious name for purposes of filing a complaint, could not properly be invoked by Ms.”
Show all 16 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.