Pirhonen v. Greene

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Pirhonen v. Greene

641 A.2d 1325, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 114, 1994 WL 164810

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 14, 1994

DocketNo. 93-509-A

StatusPublished

This text of 641 A.2d 1325 (Pirhonen v. Greene) 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

Pirhonen v. Greene, 641 A.2d 1325, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 114, 1994 WL 164810 (R.I. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before this court on April 4, 1994, pursuant to an order requiring the plaintiff to appear and to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff, John Flynn, substituted upon the death of the original plaintiff, appeals from a Superior Court order denying his [1326]*1326motion to set aside a default judgment, partial summary judgment and an award of damages under rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, this court concludes that cause has not been shown.

A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice, and his or her rulings will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Forcier v. Fortier, 558 A.2d 212 (R.I.1989). The plaintiff has failed to show excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation or otherwise good cause. See generally Pari v. Pari, 558 A.2d 632, 634 (R.I.1989). Consequently the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

ORDER

This matter came before this court on April 4, 1994, pursuant to an order requiring the plaintiff to appear and to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff, John Flynn, substituted upon the death of the original plaintiff, appeals from a Superior Court order denying his [1326]*1326motion to set aside a default judgment, partial summary judgment and an award of damages under rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, this court concludes that cause has not been shown.

A motion to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice, and his or her rulings will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Forcier v. Fortier, 558 A.2d 212 (R.I.1989). The plaintiff has failed to show excusable neglect, fraud, misrepresentation or otherwise good cause. See generally Pari v. Pari, 558 A.2d 632, 634 (R.I.1989). Consequently the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment.

The plaintiffs appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 A.2d 1325, 1994 R.I. LEXIS 114, 1994 WL 164810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pirhonen-v-greene-ri-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack