Marteka v. Marquette Credit Union

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Marteka v. Marquette Credit Union

431 A.2d 435, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1296

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 21, 1981

DocketNo. 79-499-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 431 A.2d 435 (Marteka v. Marquette Credit Union) 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

Marteka v. Marquette Credit Union, 431 A.2d 435, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1296 (R.I. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

[436]*436ORDER

This matter comes before us on the defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 16(g) to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court entered in its favor, and on ■ defendant’s motion to vacate a restraining order assented to by both parties. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed in the case and have listened to arguments of counsel on May 11,1981. With respect to plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion was not timely filed within the 10-day requirement of Rule 16(g) we note that our rules are for the convenience of this court and they do not confer any rights on any party. Therefore, we hereby grant defendant’s motion to affirm and we also grant defendant’s motion to vacate the stay.

SHEA, J., did not participate.

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

[436]*436ORDER

This matter comes before us on the defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 16(g) to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court entered in its favor, and on ■ defendant’s motion to vacate a restraining order assented to by both parties. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed in the case and have listened to arguments of counsel on May 11,1981. With respect to plaintiff’s contention that the defendant’s motion was not timely filed within the 10-day requirement of Rule 16(g) we note that our rules are for the convenience of this court and they do not confer any rights on any party. Therefore, we hereby grant defendant’s motion to affirm and we also grant defendant’s motion to vacate the stay.

SHEA, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 A.2d 435, 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marteka-v-marquette-credit-union-ri-1981.