Cournoyer v. Doorley
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
This matter came before a panel of this court pursuant to an order requiring the defendants to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily decided. Upon review and consideration of the parties’ memo-randa and arguments, we believe that cause has not been shown and that the appeal can be decided at this time.
The defendants, James H. Doorley, Jr. (Doorley) and Mary J. Doorley, appeal from a Superior Court order denying their motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Albert Cournoyer, Armand Cour-noyer, Theresa Blunt, Cecile Gerber, and Marieanne Blanchard, who are…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Forcier v. ForcierSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1989
- Metcalf v. CerioSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967
- Graham Architectural Products Corp. v. M & J CONSTRUCTION CO.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1985
- Pion v. TagueSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996
4Cited by4 opinions
- Pleasant Management, LLC v. CarrascoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
- Gianquitti v. Warshaw, 01-6748 (r.I.super. 2006)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2006
- In re Markese T.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
- Mullen v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, Wc95-0198 (1997)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1997