Legal Opinion
Feeney v. Napolitano
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Decided February 5, 2003No. 2001-199-AppealPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
The defendants, Donald Masi (Masi) and the City of Providence (city) (collectively referred to as defendants), appeal from a judgment obtained against them after a Superior Court personal injury trial. The defendants ask that we vacate the damage award because it exceeded the amount permitted by statute. We agree that plaintiff Kathleen M. Feeney (plaintiff or Feeney), failed to sue Masi in his individual capacity and, therefore, she is entitled to recover only $100,000 from the city, the maximum amount of damages allowed under G.L.1956 § 9-31-3. Thus, we hereby vacate the portion of…
3Cases cited31 opinions
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Wells v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Richard Atchinson v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Laura Nix v. Bobby Norman, Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training and the State of ArkansasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- Chrabaszcz v. Johnston School CommitteeDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2007
- Andrade v. PerrySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2004
- Town of Cumberland v. SusaSuperior Court of Rhode Island · 2007