Izzo v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Izzo v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

352 A.2d 395, 116 R.I. 42, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1241

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 17, 1976

Docket73-206-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 352 A.2d 395 (Izzo v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) 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

Izzo v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 352 A.2d 395, 116 R.I. 42, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1241 (R.I. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

*43 Per Curiam.

The facts in this case are set forth in our opinion in Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 114 R. I. 224, 331 A.2d 395 (1975) and require no repetition here. After the filing of that opinion wherein we denied and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the judgment appealed from, the plaintiff filed a petition requesting permission to reargue. A majority of the court granted the petition, Mr. Justice Kelleher being of the opinion that it should be denied. Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 114 R. I. 937, 331 A.2d 395, 399 (1975).

We have considered all of the arguments made by plaintiff in this proceeding, but find no merit in any of them or any reason why we should modify our original ruling that a motion for a new trial which does not comply with the provisions of Super. R. Civ. P. 59 (a) does not extend the 20-day appeal period set forth in our Rule 4.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that the “unique circumstances” doctrine mentioned by the plaintiff and referred to in the cases cited by him should be appealed, we find nothing in this record showing that the trial justice did anything which would warrant the granting of an untimely appeal. The cases cited by the plaintiff in his brief are materially distinguishable from the fact situation in the case at bar and therefore of no help to him here. 1 Mount Desert Yacht Yard, Inc. v. Phillips, 348 A.2d 16 (Me. 1975), cited by the plaintiff during oral argument before us is also of no help to him. Indeed, the decision of the court in that case supports the conclusion reached by us in our original opinion.

*44 8. Thomas Cotroneo, Amato A. DeLuca, for plaintiff. Higgins & Slattery, Robert J. Dumouchel, for defendant.

The plaintiff has failed to persuade us to change our decision and, therefore, the cause is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with our original opinion. Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, supra at 232, 331 A.2d at 399.

1

The plaintiff cited the following cases: Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U. S. 203, 84 S.Ct. 699, 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U. S. 384, 84 S.C. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U. S. 215, 83 S.Ct. 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962); Eady v. Foerder, 381 F.2d 980 (7th Cir. 1967); Pierre v. Jordan, 333 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1964).

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

*43 Per Curiam.

The facts in this case are set forth in our opinion in Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 114 R. I. 224, 331 A.2d 395 (1975) and require no repetition here. After the filing of that opinion wherein we denied and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the judgment appealed from, the plaintiff filed a petition requesting permission to reargue. A majority of the court granted the petition, Mr. Justice Kelleher being of the opinion that it should be denied. Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 114 R. I. 937, 331 A.2d 395, 399 (1975).

We have considered all of the arguments made by plaintiff in this proceeding, but find no merit in any of them or any reason why we should modify our original ruling that a motion for a new trial which does not comply with the provisions of Super. R. Civ. P. 59 (a) does not extend the 20-day appeal period set forth in our Rule 4.

Even if we assume, without deciding, that the “unique circumstances” doctrine mentioned by the plaintiff and referred to in the cases cited by him should be appealed, we find nothing in this record showing that the trial justice did anything which would warrant the granting of an untimely appeal. The cases cited by the plaintiff in his brief are materially distinguishable from the fact situation in the case at bar and therefore of no help to him here. 1 Mount Desert Yacht Yard, Inc. v. Phillips, 348 A.2d 16 (Me. 1975), cited by the plaintiff during oral argument before us is also of no help to him. Indeed, the decision of the court in that case supports the conclusion reached by us in our original opinion.

*44 8. Thomas Cotroneo, Amato A. DeLuca, for plaintiff. Higgins & Slattery, Robert J. Dumouchel, for defendant.

The plaintiff has failed to persuade us to change our decision and, therefore, the cause is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with our original opinion. Izzo v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, supra at 232, 331 A.2d at 399.

1

The plaintiff cited the following cases: Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U. S. 203, 84 S.Ct. 699, 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964); Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U. S. 384, 84 S.C. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U. S. 215, 83 S.Ct. 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962); Eady v. Foerder, 381 F.2d 980 (7th Cir. 1967); Pierre v. Jordan, 333 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1964).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 A.2d 395, 116 R.I. 42, 1976 R.I. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izzo-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-ri-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack