Anagnost v. State

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Anagnost v. State

633 A.2d 1358, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 213, 1993 WL 441208

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 15, 1993

DocketNo. 92-583-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 633 A.2d 1358 (Anagnost v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anagnost v. State, 633 A.2d 1358, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 213, 1993 WL 441208 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court for hearing pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why the issues in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case the plaintiffs have appealed from an order of the Superior Court granting the state’s motion to dismiss an action for the assessment of damages following condemnation of plaintiffs’ property under the provisions of G.L.1956 (1990 Reenactment) chapter 6 of title 37.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, the court is of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The trial justice found that the plaintiffs had failed to give notice to the state as required by § 37-6-18. That statute re[1359]*1359quires a party, upon filing a petition for assessment of damages as a result of a taking by eminent domain, to give notice to the acquiring authority within twenty days. The trial justice had before her two contradictory affidavits regarding the issue of notice. Her findings on this issue are entitled to great weight and are not to be disturbed unless it is shown that the trial justice was clearly wrong or had misconceived or overlooked material evidence. Jackvony v. Poncelet, 584 A.2d 1112, 1114 (R.I.1991). There is no showing that the trial justice was clearly wrong.

For these reasons, the appeal is denied and dismissed, the order appealed from is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

FAY, C.J., did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court for hearing pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why the issues in this appeal should not be summarily decided. In this case the plaintiffs have appealed from an order of the Superior Court granting the state’s motion to dismiss an action for the assessment of damages following condemnation of plaintiffs’ property under the provisions of G.L.1956 (1990 Reenactment) chapter 6 of title 37.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing their counsel in oral argument, the court is of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The trial justice found that the plaintiffs had failed to give notice to the state as required by § 37-6-18. That statute re[1359]*1359quires a party, upon filing a petition for assessment of damages as a result of a taking by eminent domain, to give notice to the acquiring authority within twenty days. The trial justice had before her two contradictory affidavits regarding the issue of notice. Her findings on this issue are entitled to great weight and are not to be disturbed unless it is shown that the trial justice was clearly wrong or had misconceived or overlooked material evidence. Jackvony v. Poncelet, 584 A.2d 1112, 1114 (R.I.1991). There is no showing that the trial justice was clearly wrong.

For these reasons, the appeal is denied and dismissed, the order appealed from is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.

FAY, C.J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 1358, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 213, 1993 WL 441208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anagnost-v-state-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack