Clifford V. Harding v. Imp. Printing Fin. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Warwick Brass Fdry. v. Universal Wind. Co.

    97 R.I. 474 (R.I. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    This court has long held that the provision of the statute concerning the specification of error in the form of reasons of appeal requires substantial particularity as to the adverse ruling an appellant desires to challenge here and that the general reasons of appeal are not sufficient to bring before us specific errors of law that occurred during the hearing below. Harding v. Imperial Printing Finishing Co., 45 R.I. 416. In Campisani v. Sun Dial Optical Co., 80 R.I. 307, we considered whether the statutory requirement was satisfied by a reason of appeal stating that the "Trial Justice erred in admitting certain testimony during the course of the trial to which objection was made."

  2. Wanskuck Co. v. Puleo

    78 R.I. 447 (R.I. 1951)   Cited 4 times
    In Wanskuck Co. v. Puleo, 78 R.I. 447, 82 A.2d 872, we held that in cases following the course of equity, ordinary questions as to trial justice's decision appearing in a decree may be presented under general reasons of appeal therefrom.

    Moreover, the workmen's compensation act, article III, ยง 7 (b), clearly provides in part: "* * * the appellant shall file reasons of appeal stating specifically all the questions of law or equity decided adversely to him which he desires to include in his reasons of appeal * * *." That provision was considered in Harding v. Imperial Printing Finishing Co., 45 R.I. 416, where this court refused to consider questions as to certain parts of the decree that were not set forth specifically in the reasons of appeal. In the instant case the respondent is attempting to raise questions concerning specific rulings to which objection was made at the hearing but which have not been included or set forth specifically in his reasons of appeal.

  3. Gomes v. John J. Orr & Son

    78 R.I. 96 (R.I. 1951)   Cited 11 times

    Petitioner's second contention is that the trial justice erred in failing to award costs in his favor. In Harding v. Imperial Printing Finishing Co., 45 R.I. 416, a compensation case, this court held that the question of awarding costs is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the superior court and will not be reviewed except where it appears that there has been an abuse of discretion. See also Egan v. Walsh-Kaiser Co., 73 R.I. 399.

  4. Egan v. Walsh-Kaiser Co.

    73 R.I. 399 (R.I. 1948)   Cited 10 times
    In Egan v. Walsh-Kaiser Co., 73 R.I. 399, we held that costs technically considered would not include such expenditures, but that the particular language above quoted expressly broadened the meaning so as to include "actual expenditures, or such part thereof as the court shall deem meet * * *."

    [5-7] Petitioner's second point with reference to costs remains to be considered. The awarding of costs is exclusively within the province of the superior court. Harding v. Imperial Printing Finishing Co., 45 R.I. 416. In equity the prevailing party is not entitled to costs as a matter of right, as is the case at law; and workmen's compensation cases in this state follow the practice in equity.