Winston v. Bradford Southworth

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Winston v. Bradford Southworth

374 A.2d 559, 118 R.I. 928, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1586

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 28, 1977

DocketAppeal No. 77-51

StatusPublished

This text of 374 A.2d 559 (Winston v. Bradford Southworth) 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

Winston v. Bradford Southworth, 374 A.2d 559, 118 R.I. 928, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1586 (R.I. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

This case comes before the court on the motion of the plaintiff for a limited remand, since it is doubtful whether the case was heard on preliminary or permanent injunction.

William F. Reilly, Public Defender, Barbara Hurst, John A. MacFadyen III, Asst. Public Defenders, for plaintiff. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, George M. Cappello, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Corrections, for defendants.

The case is remanded to the Superior Court for the purpose of clarifying whether the case was heard on preliminary or permanent injunction. If the case was heard on permanent injunction, then it is properly appealable and will be returned to this court, forthwith. If the case was heard on preliminary injunction, it is not properly appealable in this court, at this time, and it will be retained by the Superior Court for proper proceedings. See 1 Kent, R.I. Civ. Prac. §65.5 at 477-78 (1969).

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

This case comes before the court on the motion of the plaintiff for a limited remand, since it is doubtful whether the case was heard on preliminary or permanent injunction.

William F. Reilly, Public Defender, Barbara Hurst, John A. MacFadyen III, Asst. Public Defenders, for plaintiff. Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, George M. Cappello, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Corrections, for defendants.

The case is remanded to the Superior Court for the purpose of clarifying whether the case was heard on preliminary or permanent injunction. If the case was heard on permanent injunction, then it is properly appealable and will be returned to this court, forthwith. If the case was heard on preliminary injunction, it is not properly appealable in this court, at this time, and it will be retained by the Superior Court for proper proceedings. See 1 Kent, R.I. Civ. Prac. §65.5 at 477-78 (1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 A.2d 559, 118 R.I. 928, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-bradford-southworth-ri-1977.