Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Curtis v. Diversified Chemicals & Propellants Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided February 4, 1982No. 79-228-AppealPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurray, Justice

I concur with the majority in their finding that the trial justice acted in accord with applicable case law. He properly exercised his discretion within the dictates of Rules 4(b) and 41(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure; and the sanction invoked by him against the plaintiff was in conformity with our previous rulings on this point. See Germano v. Campbell, 116 R.I. 524, 359 A.2d 34 (1976); Sousa v. Casey, 111 R.I. 623, 306 A.2d 186 (1973); Burns v. Hirsch, 108 R.I. 251, 274 A.2d 421 (1971); Barton v. D’Attorro, 106 R.I. 697, 262 A.2d 834 (1970); Caprio v. Fanning & Doorley…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lloyd v. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
  2. Caprio v. Fanning & Doorley Construction Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
  3. H. Alpers & Associates v. Omega Precision Hand Tools, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Sousa v. CaseySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1973
  5. Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. Hooker Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1970

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API