De Robbio v. De Robbio

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

De Robbio v. De Robbio

16 A.2d 327, 65 R.I. 443, 1940 R.I. LEXIS 134

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in De Robbio v. De Robbio. Read the opinion of the Court — 61 R.I. 208 →

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided October 11, 1940·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After the filing of our opinion the respondent, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We have carefully considered said motion and the reasons assigned therefor. As the motion contains no matter which was not *444 fully considered and passed upon before the filing of said opinion the motion is denied and dismissed.

Luigi De Pasquale, Arthur Falcone, for petitioner. Frank H. Wildes, for respondent.

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

Per Curiam.

After the filing of our opinion the respondent, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We have carefully considered said motion and the reasons assigned therefor. As the motion contains no matter which was not *444 fully considered and passed upon before the filing of said opinion the motion is denied and dismissed.

Luigi De Pasquale, Arthur Falcone, for petitioner. Frank H. Wildes, for respondent.

De Robbio v. De Robbio, 16 A.2d 327, 65 R.I. 443, 1940 R.I. LEXIS 134 (R.I. 1940).

Pincite

16 A.2d 327 (De Robbio v. De Robbio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.