Payne v. Superior Court
This text of 82 A.2d 167 (Payne v. Superior Court) 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.
Opinion
Mary Dexter PAYNE et al.
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF PROVIDENCE.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Everett D. Higgins, Harold E. Staples, Edwin H. Hastings, all of Providence, for petitioners.
William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Coogan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
William E. McCabe, City Sol., James J. Corrigan, Asst. City Sol., Providence, for City of Providence.
PER CURIAM.
After our decision in the above case the petitioners asked and received permission to file a motion for reargument. Pursuant to this permission they have filed such a motion, setting out therein certain reasons on which they base their contention that justice requires a reargument of the case. *168 We have carefully considered those reasons and we are of the opinion that they are without merit.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
82 A.2d 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-superior-court-ri-1951.