Legal Opinion

Cournoyer v. Doorley

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided July 3, 1997No. 96-44-AppealPublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Forcier v. ForcierSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1989
  2. Metcalf v. CerioSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967
  3. Graham Architectural Products Corp. v. M & J CONSTRUCTION CO.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1985
  4. Pion v. TagueSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1996

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pleasant Management, LLC v. CarrascoSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2008
  2. Gianquitti v. Warshaw, 01-6748 (r.I.super. 2006)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2006
  3. In re Markese T.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
  4. Mullen v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, Wc95-0198 (1997)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API