Soares v. Dipietro Kay Corporation

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Soares v. Dipietro Kay Corporation

623 A.2d 36, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 104, 1993 WL 131438

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 8, 1993

DocketNo. 92-400-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 623 A.2d 36 (Soares v. Dipietro Kay Corporation) 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

Soares v. Dipietro Kay Corporation, 623 A.2d 36, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 104, 1993 WL 131438 (R.I. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument March 30, 1993 pursuant to an order which had directed the defendant to appear in order to show cause why this appeal should not be denied and dismissed.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The award of damages was issued by a master who was appointed by agreement of the parties. He found that storage charges for a vessel owned by the defendants was due and owing. The findings of the master were based upon evidence submitted and no showing has been made that the master was clearly wrong.

Consequently, the defendants’ appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment entered in the Superior Court conforming the master’s award is hereby affirmed.

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

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument March 30, 1993 pursuant to an order which had directed the defendant to appear in order to show cause why this appeal should not be denied and dismissed.

After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

The award of damages was issued by a master who was appointed by agreement of the parties. He found that storage charges for a vessel owned by the defendants was due and owing. The findings of the master were based upon evidence submitted and no showing has been made that the master was clearly wrong.

Consequently, the defendants’ appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment entered in the Superior Court conforming the master’s award is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 A.2d 36, 1993 R.I. LEXIS 104, 1993 WL 131438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soares-v-dipietro-kay-corporation-ri-1993.