McGraw-Edison Co. v. Friedenn

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McGraw-Edison Co. v. Friedenn

214 A.2d 381, 100 R.I. 267, 1965 R.I. LEXIS 386

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 15, 1965

DocketM.P. No. 1700

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 A.2d 381 (McGraw-Edison Co. v. Friedenn) 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

McGraw-Edison Co. v. Friedenn, 214 A.2d 381, 100 R.I. 267, 1965 R.I. LEXIS 386 (R.I. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Roberts, J.

This petition for certiorari was brought to review a ruling of the superior court ordering the petitioner here, as the .defendant in an action of assumpsit pending in that .court, to produce for examination by the plaintiff in that action a number of documents designated in a petition to compel the production of documents pursuant to G. L. 1956, §9-19-23.

We have examined the petition to compel production and the allegations contained therein relating to the relevancy and materiality of said documents to the issues raised in the assumpsit action, and we note also that testimonial evidence was not adduced on the question of relevancy of the .documents to such issues. From this examination we conclude that the allegations set out in the petition to compel production are insufficient to establish that relevancy or -materiality under the requirements therefor set out in our opinion in Moretta v. Moretta, 100 R. I. 220, 213 A.2d 808.

*268 Higgins & Slattery, William C. Dorgan, for petitioner. Winograd, Winograd & Marcus, Irving Winograd, for respondent.

In that opinion we held that the allegations contained in the petition as to relevancy and -materiality were of a conclusory nature and were not supported by any factual allegations probative of the relevancy and materiality necessary to warrant the trial justice in the granting thereof. We are of the opinion that in the instant case, as in Moretta v. Moretta, supra, the allegations as to relevancy and materiality are conclusory also and that no adequate allegations of fact -in support thereof 'are contained in the petition to compel the production of documents. It is, therefore, our opinion that the order should be quashed without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in the assumpsit action pending in the superior court again to invoke the statute and seek the relief therein provided pursuant to a petition filed in compliance with the requirements therefor stated in Moretta v. Moretta, supra.

The- petition for certiorari is -granted, the order requiring the production of documents is quashed without prejudice, and the records certified to this court from the superior court are ordered returned to that court with our decision endorsed thereon.

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

Roberts, J.

This petition for certiorari was brought to review a ruling of the superior court ordering the petitioner here, as the .defendant in an action of assumpsit pending in that .court, to produce for examination by the plaintiff in that action a number of documents designated in a petition to compel the production of documents pursuant to G. L. 1956, §9-19-23.

We have examined the petition to compel production and the allegations contained therein relating to the relevancy and materiality of said documents to the issues raised in the assumpsit action, and we note also that testimonial evidence was not adduced on the question of relevancy of the .documents to such issues. From this examination we conclude that the allegations set out in the petition to compel production are insufficient to establish that relevancy or -materiality under the requirements therefor set out in our opinion in Moretta v. Moretta, 100 R. I. 220, 213 A.2d 808.

*268 Higgins & Slattery, William C. Dorgan, for petitioner. Winograd, Winograd & Marcus, Irving Winograd, for respondent.

In that opinion we held that the allegations contained in the petition as to relevancy and -materiality were of a conclusory nature and were not supported by any factual allegations probative of the relevancy and materiality necessary to warrant the trial justice in the granting thereof. We are of the opinion that in the instant case, as in Moretta v. Moretta, supra, the allegations as to relevancy and materiality are conclusory also and that no adequate allegations of fact -in support thereof 'are contained in the petition to compel the production of documents. It is, therefore, our opinion that the order should be quashed without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in the assumpsit action pending in the superior court again to invoke the statute and seek the relief therein provided pursuant to a petition filed in compliance with the requirements therefor stated in Moretta v. Moretta, supra.

The- petition for certiorari is -granted, the order requiring the production of documents is quashed without prejudice, and the records certified to this court from the superior court are ordered returned to that court with our decision endorsed thereon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.2d 381, 100 R.I. 267, 1965 R.I. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgraw-edison-co-v-friedenn-ri-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack