Barles v. Charette

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Barles v. Charette

457 A.2d 274, 1983 R.I. LEXIS 902

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 18, 1983

DocketNo. 82-391-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 457 A.2d 274 (Barles v. Charette) 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

Barles v. Charette, 457 A.2d 274, 1983 R.I. LEXIS 902 (R.I. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court on March 15,1983 pursuant to an order directing the defendant to show cause why the plaintiff’s appeal should not be summarily granted on the grounds that the trial justice erred in allowing the defendant to testify contra to his prior admissions filed in accordance with Super.R.Civ.P. 36. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining briefs filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the defendant does not meet the requirements for withdrawal of an admission set forth in General Electric Co. v. Forsell, 121 R.I. 19, 394 A.2d 1101 (1979). In this case the admitting litigant did not act diligently to withdraw his admission and the withdrawal resulted in extreme prejudice to the party who requested such admission. Consequently, the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant is hereby vacated, and the ease is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to hold a new trial, at which no evidence contra to the defendant’s admissions made pursuant to Rule 36 may be admitted.

MURRAY, J., and SHEA, J., did not participate.

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

ORDER

This case came before a hearing panel of this court on March 15,1983 pursuant to an order directing the defendant to show cause why the plaintiff’s appeal should not be summarily granted on the grounds that the trial justice erred in allowing the defendant to testify contra to his prior admissions filed in accordance with Super.R.Civ.P. 36. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining briefs filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the defendant does not meet the requirements for withdrawal of an admission set forth in General Electric Co. v. Forsell, 121 R.I. 19, 394 A.2d 1101 (1979). In this case the admitting litigant did not act diligently to withdraw his admission and the withdrawal resulted in extreme prejudice to the party who requested such admission. Consequently, the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant is hereby vacated, and the ease is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to hold a new trial, at which no evidence contra to the defendant’s admissions made pursuant to Rule 36 may be admitted.

MURRAY, J., and SHEA, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 A.2d 274, 1983 R.I. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barles-v-charette-ri-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack