Frey v. State, Department of Human Services

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Frey v. State, Department of Human Services

615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 279

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-418-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 615 A.2d 1020 (Frey v. State, Department of Human Services) 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

Frey v. State, Department of Human Services, 615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 279 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument pursuant to an order which had directed the parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided in light of United States Investment and Development Corp., et al. v. R.I. Department of Human Services, et al., 606 A.2d 1314 (R.I.1992).

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in determining that the state should share the cost of suit, including counsel fee incurred by the plaintiff in recovering a sum of money from the third-party tort feasor in order to reimburse the state for cash assistance and medical payments made by the state for plaintiffs benefit. The principles enunciated in United States Investment are applicable to the case at bar.

Consequently, the state’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The summary judgment entered by the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.

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

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument pursuant to an order which had directed the parties to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised by this appeal should not be summarily decided in light of United States Investment and Development Corp., et al. v. R.I. Department of Human Services, et al., 606 A.2d 1314 (R.I.1992).

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial justice was correct in determining that the state should share the cost of suit, including counsel fee incurred by the plaintiff in recovering a sum of money from the third-party tort feasor in order to reimburse the state for cash assistance and medical payments made by the state for plaintiffs benefit. The principles enunciated in United States Investment are applicable to the case at bar.

Consequently, the state’s appeal is denied and dismissed. The summary judgment entered by the Superior Court is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frey-v-state-department-of-human-services-ri-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack