Olivieri v. Corsetti

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Olivieri v. Corsetti

234 A.2d 117, 103 R.I. 5, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 567

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 18, 1967

DocketEx. Nos. 10657-10660

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.2d 117 (Olivieri v. Corsetti) 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

Olivieri v. Corsetti, 234 A.2d 117, 103 R.I. 5, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 567 (R.I. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In these four negligence cases which were consolidated for hearing both in the superior court and here, the jury returned verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiffs except only to the denial of their motions for new trials, and as ground therefor argue that new trials should have been granted by the trial justice because of an allegedly improper and prejudicial statement made by the defendant’s counsel during his argument to the jury. Under our practice, such a complaint, although susceptible to review if properly raised, will not be considered on a motion for a new trial. In these circumstances the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the denial of their motions for new trials raise no rulings of the trial justice for this court to review. McGovern v. Lord, 91 R. I. 392, 162 A.2d 799; Floyd v. Turgeon, 68 R. I. 218, 229, 27 A.2d 330, 336; Owens v. Hagenbeck-Wallace Shows Co., 58 R. I. 162, 169, 192 A. 158, 162; Horaho v. Wanelik, 56 R. I. 193, 184 *6 A. 323; G. W. McNear, Inc. v. American & British Mfg. Co., 44 R. I. 190, 206, 115 A. 709, 716.

Aram K. Berberian, for plaintiffs. Gunning & LaFazia, Bruce M. Selya, for defendant.

The plaintiff’s exception in each case is overruled, and each case is remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment on the verdict.

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

Per Curiam.

In these four negligence cases which were consolidated for hearing both in the superior court and here, the jury returned verdicts for the defendant. The plaintiffs except only to the denial of their motions for new trials, and as ground therefor argue that new trials should have been granted by the trial justice because of an allegedly improper and prejudicial statement made by the defendant’s counsel during his argument to the jury. Under our practice, such a complaint, although susceptible to review if properly raised, will not be considered on a motion for a new trial. In these circumstances the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the denial of their motions for new trials raise no rulings of the trial justice for this court to review. McGovern v. Lord, 91 R. I. 392, 162 A.2d 799; Floyd v. Turgeon, 68 R. I. 218, 229, 27 A.2d 330, 336; Owens v. Hagenbeck-Wallace Shows Co., 58 R. I. 162, 169, 192 A. 158, 162; Horaho v. Wanelik, 56 R. I. 193, 184 *6 A. 323; G. W. McNear, Inc. v. American & British Mfg. Co., 44 R. I. 190, 206, 115 A. 709, 716.

Aram K. Berberian, for plaintiffs. Gunning & LaFazia, Bruce M. Selya, for defendant.

The plaintiff’s exception in each case is overruled, and each case is remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment on the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.2d 117, 103 R.I. 5, 1967 R.I. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivieri-v-corsetti-ri-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack