Dale v. Dale

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Dale v. Dale

37 A.3d 124, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 14, 2012 WL 340320

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketNo. 2010-79-APPEAL

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 A.3d 124 (Dale v. Dale) 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

Dale v. Dale, 37 A.3d 124, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 14, 2012 WL 340320 (R.I. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before this Court in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the record and the parties’ prebriefing statements, we proceed to decide the case at this time without further briefing or argument.

This case is before the Court on the appeal by the defendant, Richard C. Dale, II, from the Family Court’s denial of his motion to adjudge the pro se plaintiff, Sheryl A. Dale (a/k/a Sheryl A. Jones), in contempt of, and to compel her compliance with, visitation orders relative to the parties’ two children. The defendant contends that G.L.1956 § 15-5-16(d) requires that the Family Court mandate compliance with ordered visitation by both the custodial parent and the parties’ minor children, despite a strained relationship between the non-custodial parent and the teenaged children. However, the Family Court’s order is interlocutory and therefore not appeal-able. Interlocutory orders are reviewable only by way of writ of certiorari. Gardiner v. Gardiner, 821 A.2d 229, 230 n. 1 (R.I.2003) (citing Pier House Inn, Inc. v. [125]*125421Corp., 689 A.2d 1069, 1070 (R.I.1997) (mem.)).

Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is not properly before us, and therefore the appeal is denied and dismissed.

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

ORDER

This case came before this Court in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the record and the parties’ prebriefing statements, we proceed to decide the case at this time without further briefing or argument.

This case is before the Court on the appeal by the defendant, Richard C. Dale, II, from the Family Court’s denial of his motion to adjudge the pro se plaintiff, Sheryl A. Dale (a/k/a Sheryl A. Jones), in contempt of, and to compel her compliance with, visitation orders relative to the parties’ two children. The defendant contends that G.L.1956 § 15-5-16(d) requires that the Family Court mandate compliance with ordered visitation by both the custodial parent and the parties’ minor children, despite a strained relationship between the non-custodial parent and the teenaged children. However, the Family Court’s order is interlocutory and therefore not appeal-able. Interlocutory orders are reviewable only by way of writ of certiorari. Gardiner v. Gardiner, 821 A.2d 229, 230 n. 1 (R.I.2003) (citing Pier House Inn, Inc. v. [125]*125421Corp., 689 A.2d 1069, 1070 (R.I.1997) (mem.)).

Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is not properly before us, and therefore the appeal is denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.3d 124, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 14, 2012 WL 340320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-v-dale-ri-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack