State v. Bishop

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Bishop

378 A.2d 1075, 119 R.I. 917, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 2083

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedSeptember 30, 1977

DocketM. P. No. 77-293

StatusPublished

This text of 378 A.2d 1075 (State v. Bishop) 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

State v. Bishop, 378 A.2d 1075, 119 R.I. 917, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 2083 (R.I. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In this petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner cites In re Caldarone, 115 R.I. 316, 345 A.2d 871 (1975). However, in the present case, contrary to the facts in Caldarone, an appeal was filed. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.

This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner’s filing a motion in this court under Rule 11(c) showing that the inability of the petitioner to cause timely transmission of the [918]*918record, for two years, was due to causes beyond his control or to circumstances which may be deemed excusable neglect.

Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Nancy Marks Rahmes, Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent. Bevilacqua ér Cicilline, John F. Cicilline, for defendant-petitioner. Chief Justice Bevilacqua did not participate.

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

In this petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner cites In re Caldarone, 115 R.I. 316, 345 A.2d 871 (1975). However, in the present case, contrary to the facts in Caldarone, an appeal was filed. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied.

This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner’s filing a motion in this court under Rule 11(c) showing that the inability of the petitioner to cause timely transmission of the [918]*918record, for two years, was due to causes beyond his control or to circumstances which may be deemed excusable neglect.

Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, Nancy Marks Rahmes, Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent. Bevilacqua ér Cicilline, John F. Cicilline, for defendant-petitioner. Chief Justice Bevilacqua did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 A.2d 1075, 119 R.I. 917, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 2083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bishop-ri-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack