In re DiLibero — Rhode Island Supreme Court continues attorney suspension pending Massachusetts reinstatement
Case In the Matter of Steven D. DiLibero Court Rhode Island Supreme Court Date Decided June 5, 2026 Docket No. […]
Case In the Matter of Steven D. DiLibero Court Rhode Island Supreme Court Date Decided June 5, 2026 Docket No. […]
Case The Providence Community Health Centers, Inc. v. Neal Dupuis, in his capacity as Tax Assessor for the City of
Case Raymond Desrochers et al. v. Luigi Micheli III Court Rhode Island Supreme Court Date Decided June 4, 2026 Docket
Case Julie DeOliveira et al. v. Greg Trecaso et al. Court Rhode Island Supreme Court Date Decided June 3, 2026
Case LandingPartners LLC v. Shiva, LLC, et al. Court Rhode Island Supreme Court Date Decided June 3, 2026 Docket No.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed a pro se appellant’s appeal from an order quashing a deposition subpoena and granting a protective order because the appellant deliberately failed to file the hearing transcript under Rule 10(b)(1). The Court addressed the narrow exception allowing transcript-free appeals on pure legal questions but found a one-page order saying only “for reasons stated on the record” insufficient to permit meaningful review.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a motor vehicle negligence case, rejecting all eleven error claims by the plaintiffs. Significant holdings address: the admissibility of a dismissed defendant’s video deposition under Rule 32; authentication of bare Google Earth photographs by lay witnesses with personal knowledge; the narrow scope of the empty chair doctrine as limited to identifiable available witnesses; and the adequacy of a verdict sheet that used “was negligent” language in a comparative fault framework.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for a real estate brokerage, holding that the standard of care for screening prospective tenants—including whether a “basic internet search” is required in addition to a credit and criminal background check—is not within the common knowledge of laypeople and therefore requires expert testimony. Because the plaintiff was precluded from offering expert testimony after repeatedly failing to produce his expert for deposition, his negligence claim could not survive summary judgment.