Birchall v. Davis

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Birchall v. Davis

633 A.2d 259, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 255, 1993 WL 489634

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 21, 1993

DocketNo. 92-658-A

StatusPublished

This text of 633 A.2d 259 (Birchall v. Davis) 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

Birchall v. Davis, 633 A.2d 259, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 255, 1993 WL 489634 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court on October 19, 1993, pursuant to an order requiring the parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff appeals a Superior Court order dismissing his ease for failing to serve defendants in a timely manner. “[T]he issuance of process must be made within a reasonable time after a complaint has been filed, absent a showing by the plaintiff that such delay was excusable.” Caprio v. Fanning and Doorley, 104 R.I. 197, 199-200, 243 A.2d 738, 740 (1968). The trial justice found that due diligence had not been established and as such the delay was inexcusable. We find no evidence in the record that would lead us to a contrary conclusion. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

WEISBERGER, Acting 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 a panel of the Supreme Court on October 19, 1993, pursuant to an order requiring the parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff appeals a Superior Court order dismissing his ease for failing to serve defendants in a timely manner. “[T]he issuance of process must be made within a reasonable time after a complaint has been filed, absent a showing by the plaintiff that such delay was excusable.” Caprio v. Fanning and Doorley, 104 R.I. 197, 199-200, 243 A.2d 738, 740 (1968). The trial justice found that due diligence had not been established and as such the delay was inexcusable. We find no evidence in the record that would lead us to a contrary conclusion. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

WEISBERGER, Acting C.J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 259, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 255, 1993 WL 489634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birchall-v-davis-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack