Hulslander v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hulslander v. Murphy

633 A.2d 263, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 240, 1993 WL 489682

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketNo. 93-42-A

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 633 A.2d 263 (Hulslander v. Murphy) 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

Hulslander v. Murphy, 633 A.2d 263, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 240, 1993 WL 489682 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court on November 16,1993 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 plaintiffs appeal a Superior Court order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss made pursuant to Super.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 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. In rule 12(b)(6) dismissals the allegations must show that there is some insuperable bar to relief. Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, 110 R.I. 580, 296 A.2d 112 (1972). We conclude that the passing of the statutory period of limitation provided in G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-14(b) constituted that insuperable bar.

The ruling of the trial justice is affirmed and the plaintiffs’ appeal is denied and dismissed.

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 November 16,1993 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 plaintiffs appeal a Superior Court order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss made pursuant to Super.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 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. In rule 12(b)(6) dismissals the allegations must show that there is some insuperable bar to relief. Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, 110 R.I. 580, 296 A.2d 112 (1972). We conclude that the passing of the statutory period of limitation provided in G.L.1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-14(b) constituted that insuperable bar.

The ruling of the trial justice is affirmed and the plaintiffs’ appeal is denied and dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 A.2d 263, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 240, 1993 WL 489682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulslander-v-murphy-ri-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack