Ucci v. Mancini

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Ucci v. Mancini

320 A.2d 334, 113 R.I. 261

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 4, 1974

Docket73-77-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 320 A.2d 334 (Ucci v. Mancini) 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

Ucci v. Mancini, 320 A.2d 334, 113 R.I. 261 (R.I. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a complaint for specific performance of an option to purchase certain real estate located in the city of Warwick. 1 The option is contained in a lease entered into between the parties. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking possession of the premises and damages. The case was heard before a justice of the Superior Court sitting without a jury and resulted in a decision and judgment for the plaintiff for specific performance and the denial of the defendants’ counterclaim. The case is here on the defendants’ appeal.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed by an evenly divided court.

Reargument motion denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Roberts did not participate.

1

The plaintiff brought this action individually and in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. Another facet of this case was before us. See Ucci v. Mancini, 110 R. I. 909, 290 A.2d 616 (1972).

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

Per Curiam.

This is a complaint for specific performance of an option to purchase certain real estate located in the city of Warwick. 1 The option is contained in a lease entered into between the parties. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking possession of the premises and damages. The case was heard before a justice of the Superior Court sitting without a jury and resulted in a decision and judgment for the plaintiff for specific performance and the denial of the defendants’ counterclaim. The case is here on the defendants’ appeal.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed by an evenly divided court.

Reargument motion denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Roberts did not participate.

1

The plaintiff brought this action individually and in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. Another facet of this case was before us. See Ucci v. Mancini, 110 R. I. 909, 290 A.2d 616 (1972).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 A.2d 334, 113 R.I. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ucci-v-mancini-ri-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack