Kimball v. Kelly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Kimball v. Kelly

66 R.I. 169

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kimball v. Kelly. Read the opinion of the Court — 65 R.I. 484 →

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided February 20, 1941·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After the filing of our opinion the complainant, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We [170]*170have carefully considered said motion and the reasons- assigned therefor.

Charles R. Easton, for complainant. James J. Fogarty, Jr., Voigt, Wright, Munroe & Clason, for respondents.

However, as the motion contains no matter which was not fully considered and passed upon before the filing of our opinion, the motion is denied and dismissed.

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 complainant, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We [170]*170have carefully considered said motion and the reasons- assigned therefor.

Charles R. Easton, for complainant. James J. Fogarty, Jr., Voigt, Wright, Munroe & Clason, for respondents.

However, as the motion contains no matter which was not fully considered and passed upon before the filing of our opinion, the motion is denied and dismissed.

Kimball v. Kelly, 66 R.I. 169 (R.I. 1941).

Pincite

66 R.I. 169 (Kimball v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.