From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laundry Basket Inc. v. State

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
Apr 27, 2020
C.A. No. PC-2019-4382 (R.I. Super. Apr. 27, 2020)

Opinion

C. A. PC-2019-4382

04-27-2020

THE LAUNDRY BASKET INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND CARRIERS and NATIONAL GRID Appellees.

For Plaintiff: Edward R. McCormick, III, Esq. For Defendant: John P. McCoy, Esq., Christy Hetherington, Esq., Tiffany Ann Parenteau, Esq.


For Plaintiff: Edward R. McCormick, III, Esq.

For Defendant: John P. McCoy, Esq., Christy Hetherington, Esq., Tiffany Ann Parenteau, Esq.

DECISION

VOGEL, J.

The Laundry Basket Inc. (Laundry Basket or Appellant) brings this appeal from a March 1, 2019 decision and order of the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (the PUC) finding that it tampered with gas meters at four locations. In accordance with the decision and order, Appellant owes $229, 194.78 to Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid-Gas (National Grid) for the previously unbilled natural gas usage. The PUC further ruled that National Grid may submit another statement to the customer for the amount owed, and if Laundry Basket fails to pay that bill within thirty days of receipt, gas service at all locations will be terminated. This Court exercises jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 42-35-15(g). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court affirms the decision of the PUC.

I

Facts & Travel

Laundry Basket is a coin-operated, self-service laundromat with a wash, dry, and fold service. (Hr'g Tr. 6:22-23, Apr. 30, 2018.) For twenty of the twenty-five years it has been in business, Laundry Basket has operated at four separate locations within the City of Cranston, 521 Pontiac Avenue, 1070 Park Avenue, 947 Cranston Street, and 400 Dyer Avenue. Id. at 7:18-25. On July 29, 2016, National Grid personnel discovered evidence of meter tampering at 947 Cranston Street and proceeded to inspect the other three locations. Hr'g Tr. 33:8-9, Mar. 27, 2018; see also 13:11-24. The inspection was comprehensive and included photographs and notes made at the various sites by field technicians before National Grid removed the meters and conducted additional testing on them at its facility in Lincoln. Id. at 41:4-6; see also 65:3-5; see also 9:8-13; see also PUC Exs. 4-7. Based upon the inspections and testing of the meters, National Grid determined that Laundry Basket had tampered with the meters and had been underbilled for gas usage. Id. at 33:21-24. In May 2017, the utility company billed the Appellant for the amounts it claimed were owed due to past underbilling. See id.; see also National Grid Ex. C at 8. In response, Laundry Basket filed a complaint with the PUC challenging the contention that the company had tampered with the meters and was responsible for the amounts billed by National Grid. The PUC conducted a duly noticed evidentiary hearing on the Appellant's appeal on February 16, 2018, March 27, 2018, and April 30, 2018.

The Laundry Basket facility located at 400 Dyer Avenue closed in June 2017. (Hr'g Tr. 8:1-12, Apr. 30, 2018.) However, this facility remains an object of this appeal, as the PUC also found that meter tampering and underbilling occurred at this location during all pertinent times of this case.

Technically, Laundry Basket did not file a formal complaint. Rather, the PUC initiated proceedings as a result of a telephone call and a letter the Appellant sent to National Grid challenging the billing status of its account. Hr'g Tr. 7:15-8:8, Feb. 16, 2018; see also PUC Decision at 42.

National Grid presented several witnesses at the administrative hearing. Robert St. Hilaire testified that as supervisor of the gas meter shop, lab, and testing, he was responsible for overseeing the supply of gas meters in Rhode Island and the accuracy of meter testing. (Hr'g Tr. 10:2-24, Feb. 16, 2018.) Mr. St. Hilaire additionally testified that he reviewed the specific gas meters at issue in this case. Id. at 11:19-20. He described the chain of custody of the meters removed from Laundry Basket and taken to the facility in Lincoln, Rhode Island. Id. at 11:4-12:20. National Grid personnel handled the meters at all times. Id. at 12:23-25. According to Mr. St. Hilaire, in accordance with regular procedure, gas meters are read and bills calculated through Electronic Receiver Transmitters (ERTs), which send electronic meter reads from the meter to National Grid's billing system. Id. at 14:2-7. National Grid relies on ERT reads for monthly billing. Id. at 14:19.

Mr. St. Hilaire described the protocol followed when a gas meter is brought into the facility for testing. Id. at 15:11-16:3. The meters are acclimated for twenty-four hours before National Grid personnel test them. Id. at 15:11-13. While testing, employees examine the meter's condition and take notes regarding any issue they find to be of concern, such as physical damage or evidence that the meter has been compromised. Id. at 15:13-19. Mr. St. Hilaire addressed the specific meters taken from each location in this case. He testified that based upon the examinations and testing performed by National Grid, meters at all four locations revealed evidence of tampering. See generally id. at 15-47.

National Grid presented three other witnesses, Sue McCarthy, Christopher Lincoln, and Kenneth Wood. Ms. McCarthy, a gas meter technician, tested the meters after they were returned to National Grid's facility in Lincoln. (Hr'g Tr. 7:24-8:10, Mar. 27, 2018.) She explained that in order to obtain a proper reading of a meter, she first removes the index cover to ensure that the ERT is connected. Id. at 19:2-20:25. She noted that the meter at 947 Cranston Street had been removed and then replaced sloppily, causing the ERT connection to become loose affecting the accuracy of the reading. Id. at 9:8-10:12. Regarding the meter at 400 Dyer Avenue, Ms. McCarthy testified that the tamper plugs were removed which was indicative of tampering, and such removal would result in incorrect readings. Id. at 11:7-16. She explained that tamper plugs are seals, and if they are missing from a meter, it is a signal that something is the matter with the meter. Id. at 11:7-10. Tamper plugs are compression fitted to the meter and cannot be removed without using a hand tool, such as a screwdriver. (Hr'g Tr. 20:5-8, Feb. 16, 2018); (see also Hr'g Tr. 22:21-23:2, Mar. 27, 2018).

As to the meter at 1070 Park Avenue, she found that the ERT was broken and placed on the meter backwards resulting in inaccurate readings. (Hr'g Tr. 12:4-16, Mar. 27, 2018.) She testified that tamper plugs for the ERT on the meter at 521 Pontiac Avenue along with the module itself had been removed. The silver ring used to support the module was replaced incorrectly. Id. at 13:1-10. She excluded the possibility that the meters had been damaged by National Grid personnel who removed them and transported them to Lincoln. Id. at 16:1-4.

Christopher Lincoln, a senior analyst in the regulatory department, testified about the customer service history of the Laundry Basket account. Id. at 30:20-24. Pertinent to this case, he described file notes indicating that a National Grid employee discovered meter tampering and theft of service at two locations owned by Laundry Basket on July 29, 2016-947 Cranston Street and 400 Dyer Avenue. Id. at 33:7-12. Mr. Lincoln testified that National Grid workers then installed new meters at each address, and on December 13, 2016, employees returned to the locations to verify their findings and inspect the replacement meters. At that time, they discovered no evidence of tampering. Id. at 33:15-20.

Mr. Lincoln explained that National Grid employees documented meter tampering in the field with photographic evidence. Id. at 41:4-6. He testified that the photographs taken at 947 Cranston Street depict screws missing and scraped or stripped, missing tamper plugs, and missing wires from the screws. Id. at 41:6-42:1; see also PUC Ex. 6. The photographs taken at 1070 Park Avenue indicate that the ERT was twisted to the left and no longer attached, there was a crack in the plastic, the index was not properly screwed down to the meter, the screw was stripped, and tamper plugs were removed. Id. at 81:9-24; see also PUC Ex. 4. Finally, with respect to the 521 Pontiac Avenue location, Mr. Lincoln testified that photographs showed removed tamper plugs, a missing screw from the bottom of the meter, a missing wire from the side of the meter, and a screw with that wire attached to it after it had been exchanged. Id. at 90:13-24; see also PUC Ex. 7.

Kenneth Wood, a senior analyst in the Revenue Assurance Department of National Grid, testified as to the methodology he utilized in calculating the losses for unbilled usage at all four locations. Id. at 95:4-16. To calculate losses prior to 2012, he had to engage in a fairly arduous task because he did not have the same type of records prior to that year that were available thereafter. Apparently, in 2012, Rhode Island Gas, National Grid's predecessor, changed its customer service system. Id. at 100:15-20. Mr. Wood testified that he worked backwards beginning with the discovery of tampering and replacement of the meters in 2016.

In doing so, he relied on the presence of tamper flags, signals that tampering has occurred. Mr. Wood testified that there are two different types of tamper flags. The first type of tamper flag is a tilt flag which signals the utility company when a meter or ERT module is tilted beyond a certain level. When a National Grid van drives by the location to take the monthly meter reading, the flag alerts the gas company that a tampering event occurred between the last reading and the most recent one. Id. at 101-127. The second flag is called a magnetic tamper flag, in which case the ERT will pick up any magnetic field around the ERT itself. Id. at 101:13-16. This type of flag typically will indicate whether someone is trying to stop the ERT from registering gas usage. Id. at 101:18-21.

Utilizing records of tamper flag data, usage patterns, and graphical data, he was able to calculate when the decrease in billed usage first occurred. Id. at 103:22-104:12. He examined records from 2012-2016 and compared usage levels from those dates to pre-2012 records and was able to find data supporting a decrease in usage levels between 2000-2007. Id. at 103:22-104:5.

Mr. Wood determined the initial tampering date for each location. Id. at 104:13-23. Based on his calculations, Mr. Wood testified that the estimated average gas use per day was 89.5 CCFs at 947 Cranston Street, and he determined that the loss period was from April 13, 2007 to July 29, 2016. Id. at 107:13-109:14. Mr. Wood testified that the loss period at the 521 Pontiac Avenue location was January 8, 2013 to July 29, 2016. Id. at 121:14-24. At the 1070 Park Avenue location, Mr. Wood testified that his calculations showed a decrease in use beginning in July 2009. Id. at 136:14-21. Finally, the 400 Dyer Avenue location had two distinct loss period start dates of June 14, 2006 and March 25, 2011. Id. at 148:19-23. Of significance, Mr. Wood testified that meter tampering was found at the Dyer Avenue location on numerous occasions. Id. at 149:16-22.

For its part, Laundry Basket proffered testimony from its sole witness, Kenneth Mernick. (Hr'g Tr. 6:14, Apr. 30, 2018.) Mr. Mernick denied tampering with the meters. He provided a series of reasons why the calculations made by National Grid were inaccurate and as to why the utility company erred in calculating gas usage by relying on Laundry Basket's previous billing and usage records. He testified that the 1070 Park Avenue location required an upgrade in 2010, and they installed energy efficient washers and dryers. Id. at 11:10-16. He also said that in 2013, due to fire, the 521 Pontiac Avenue location was closed for a full year. Id. at 12:2-6. Mr. Mernick explained that although the 1070 Park Avenue, 521 Pontiac Avenue, and 947 Cranston Street laundries are still operating, business at both locations has declined over the past five years due to competition. Id. at 24:22-25:6. He denied any willful misconduct on his part and testified that he never has been delinquent or had gas shut off for being delinquent. Id. at 31:8-23. Finally, Mr. Mernick noted that his wife, Linda Mernick, worked for National Grid in collections between 2013-2015, id. at 35:3-13, and that both he and his wife were present when a National Grid collector came to the 1070 Park Avenue location to collect the monthly bill and the collector observed, inspected, and replaced the damaged meter. Id. at 32:4-33:9. Laundry Basket presented no further evidence in support of its complaint.

On March 1, 2019, the PUC issued its decision denying and dismissing Laundry Basket's complaint. (PUC Decision at 186, ¶ 4.) In pertinent part, the PUC found by a preponderance of the evidence that Laundry Basket clearly tampered with the gas meters at its four locations. Id. at 183. The PUC further found that Laundry Basket was underbilled by National Grid as a result of the tampering, and the estimated amount by which Laundry Basket was underbilled is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the PUC-approved tariff and with the PUC Gas Rules. Id. The PUC determined that the amount owed the utility was $229, 194.78 and that if Laundry Basket failed to pay the amount due within thirty days of receipt of another bill from National Grid, gas service at all subject locations would be terminated. Id. at 187, ¶ 6; see also id. at 3.

From this PUC Decision, Laundry Basket timely filed this appeal.

II

Standard of Review

The Superior Court reviews the decisions of the PUC and other administrative agencies pursuant to § 42-35-15(g), which provides:

"The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
"(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
"(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
"(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
"(4) Affected by other error of law;
"(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
"(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." Section 42-35-15(g).

This Court's review of an agency's decision is limited in scope. See Nickerson v. Reitsma, 853 A.2d 1202, 1205 (R.I. 2004). "The trial justice must not 'substitute [his or her] judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.' Instead, the Superior Court must uphold the agency's decision if it is supported by legally competent evidence." Endoscopy Associates, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Health, 183 A.3d 528, 532 (R.I. 2018) (quoting Interstate Navigation Company v. Division of Public Utilities and Carriers of Rhode Island, 824 A.2d 1282, 1286 (R.I. 2003)). Our Supreme Court has defined "legally competent evidence" as '"such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and means an amount more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance."' Rhode Island Temps, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review, 749 A.2d 1121, 1125 (R.I. 2000) (quoting Center for Behavioral Health, Rhode Island, Inc. v. Barros, 710 A.2d 680, 684 (R.I. 1998)). (Internal quotation omitted). Consequently, this Court will "'reverse factual conclusions of administrative agencies only when they are totally devoid of competent evidentiary support in the record.'" Kachanis v. Board of Review, Department of Employment and Training, 638 A.2d 553, 556 (R.I. 1994) (quoting Milardo v. Coastal Resources Management Council, 434 A.2d 266, 272 (R.I. 1981)).

III

Analysis

In its memorandum in support of this appeal, Laundry Basket contends that National Grid did not meet its burden to show that the Appellant is liable for the unbilled usage as presented. Specifically, Laundry Basket argues that National Grid relied upon speculation and mere assumptions to calculate an "alleged" unbilled usage without any evidence of tampering. Conversely, National Grid argues that its report and order was comprehensively thorough and rationally supported its findings. Accordingly, the utility asserts that the tariff promulgated by the PUC requires Laundry Basket to pay for previously unbilled gas usage resulting from tampering.

According to the PUC Tariff, a gas company must furnish service to applicants under the filed rates in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions of the PUC Rules and Regulations. Hr'g Officer Ex. II, Section 1, Schedule A, Sheets 2-3. The furnishing and acceptance of service by the customer constitutes a contract under those provisions. Id. However, a gas company may discontinue service without notice whenever a fraudulent use of service by the customer is detected. Id. at Sheet 9. Importantly, according to PUC Rules and Regulations (Gas Rules), if a customer has been undercharged as a result of an incorrect connection of the meter or another similar reason, the undercharge may be billed to the customer. Gas Rules, Hr'g Officer Ex. I, Section E(6)(e).

Section 11-35-6 of the General Laws of Rhode Island specifically states:
"Every person who shall willfully or fraudulently injure or shall knowingly suffer to be injured any . . . meter, pipe, or fittings connected with or belonging to any . . . gaslight company . . ., or shall willfully tamper or meddle with any other of the appliances or appurtenances connected with or belonging to any . . . gaslight company . . . in a manner as to cause loss or damage to the company or corporation, or who shall willfully or fraudulently prevent any meter used for registering the quantity of . . . gas . . . supplied through it from duly registering the quantity so passing through it, or alter the index of any meter or in any way hinder or interfere with its proper action or just registration . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . ."

The statute goes on to provide that in any prosecution under this section, "proof that any . . . meter, pipe, or fittings have been injured, or that any meter has been prevented from duly registering the quantity of . . . gas . . . supplied through it, while on the premises occupied by the defendant, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant caused the injury[.]" Id. Although this statute pertains to criminal prosecutions rather than administrative appeals such as this, the statute establishes that evidence of meter tampering is prima facie evidence that the person conducting the tampering is the person occupying the premises on which the meter is located. See id.

Significantly, "[f]indings of the [PUC] are presumed reasonable unless they are 'shown to be clearly, palpably, and grossly unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence.'" Town of New Shoreham v. Burke, 519 A.2d 1127, 1131 (R.I. 1987) (quoting Block Island Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 505 A.2d 652, 655 (R.I. 1986)). In reviewing the PUC actions, the Court is not concerned with the methodology by which an administrative decision was reached, but rather is concerned with the fairness and reasonableness of the PUC end result. Id. (citing Narragansett Electric Co. v. Burke, 505 A.2d 1147, 1149 (R.I. 1986)). The PUC conducted three hearings during which National Grid presented it with testimony and evidence of tampering by Laundry Basket.

In its decision, the PUC found the threshold inquiry to be whether there was evidence of meter tampering with respect to some or all of the gas meters serving Laundry Basket. PUC Decision at 138. Mr. St. Hilaire testified that only National Grid personnel handled the meters when they were removed from four Laundry Basket locations and while being transported to National Grid's facility in Lincoln, Rhode Island. (Hr'g Tr. 11:4-12:25, Feb. 16, 2018). He additionally testified as to a field technician's notes from each location. With respect to 400 Dyer Avenue and 1070 Park Avenue, the technician noted evidence of tampering. Id. at 15:24-16:23.

Moreover, the technician's notes described mismatched ERT reads at all four locations, which evidenced meter tampering. Id. at 15-47. Further, the PUC discussed Mr. Lincoln's testimony with respect to each location and considered the photographic evidence of tampering which depicted missing, scraped, or stripped screws, missing tamper plugs, and missing wires from the screws. (Hr'g Tr. 41:4-42:1, Mar. 27, 2018); see also PUC Exs. 4-7. Based on this testimony and the photographs taken in the field, the PUC found that all four of Laundry Basket's gas meters had been tampered with as of July 29, 2016 and such tampering had continued over a period of years. PUC Decision at 150; see also Exs. 4-7.

The second issue that the PUC addressed was whether Laundry Basket offered sufficient evidence to defeat the claim that it was responsible for meter tampering after National Grid established a prima facie case that tampering had occurred. See generally § 11-35-6; see also R.I. R. Evid. 301(c) ("[a] statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence or proof of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption unless the statute expressly provides that such prima facie evidence is conclusive"). Clearly, the PUC found that Laundry Basket failed to do so. The PUC rejected the testimony of the sole witness who testified on its behalf, Kenneth Mernick. (Hr'g Tr. 6:9-10, Apr. 30, 2018.) This Court notes that-aside from Mr. Mernick's testimony- Laundry Basket offered no other evidence to corroborate any of Mr. Mernick's explanations as to why there was decreased gas usage at the locations. The PUC found that the explanations provided by Mr. Mernick lacked credibility, noting that his testimony "strains credulity beyond the breaking point when we are asked to believe that not one, not two, not even three, but all four meters were damaged by a person or persons unknown during the same time period as a result of completely unconnected actions without the knowledge or involvement of the Complainant." PUC Decision at 161. In accordance with the standard of review, the Court accepts this finding of credibility.

Based on the PUC Tariff, National Grid's furnishing of gas services and Laundry Basket's acceptance of those services constituted a contract, whereby Laundry Basket is responsible for all damages and costs incurred. Hr'g Officer Ex. II, Section 1, Schedule A, Sheets 2-3. The PUC rejected the only evidence proffered by Laundry Basket. As such, Appellant failed to adequately rebut the presumption of meter tampering. Even absent such presumption, the PUC accepted National Grid's contention that Laundry Basket tampered with the meters based upon evidence the PUC found to be credible and reliable. Therefore, this Court accepts the finding by the PUC that Laundry Basket did cause meter tampering at all four locations.

Finally, the PUC discussed whether National Grid used an acceptable method for estimating the number of unbilled CCFs for Laundry Basket's accounts. PUC Decision at 163. The Gas Rules provide that billing for the period of time during which there appears to have been unaccountable gas usage "shall be based upon information recorded prior or subsequent to the period of non-registration and by any other pertinent information supplied by the customer or known to the [local distribution company] . . . ." See Gas Rules, Hr'g Officer Ex. I, Section E(6)(c). Mr. Wood made his calculations within these parameters as it relates to all four of Laundry Basket's locations. (Hr'g Tr. 95:8-16, Mar. 27, 2018.) The PUC noted that Mr. Wood used a similar methodology in performing each calculation. Id. at 95:17-19. In order to account for the unbilled usage, Mr. Wood reviewed the billed centrum cubic feet in a month-by-month analysis, working backwards from when he discovered evidence of tampering and used tamper flag data, usage patterns, and graphical data to determine when the decrease in billed usage occurred. Id. at 99:19-104:12.

Based on this information, the PUC found that Mr. Wood properly used tamper flag data to assist in determining the unbilled usage where metering falls short due to tampering. PUC Decision at 176. The PUC accounted for specific instances of tampering at each location and recognized that National Grid was forced to resort to estimates based on whatever data was available to the utility. Id. at 175-176. Because Mr. Wood used a similar methodology for hundreds of other accounts and sufficiently relied upon the data available to him, this Court accepts the finding of the PUC that Mr. Wood utilized an appropriate methodology for estimating the number of unbilled CCFs for Laundry Basket's account.

National Grid employed a reasonable method in calculating the amounts underbilled due to the fraudulent conduct of the customer. A complaining party need not prove damages with "mathematical exactitude [.]" Butera v. Boucher, 798 A.2d 340, 350 (R.I. 2002). "[A]ll that is required is that they are based on reasonable and probable estimates." Id. (citing Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 119 R.I. 141, 167-68, 379 A.2d 344, 358 (1977)); Morabit v. Hoag, 80 A.3d 1, 15-16 (R.I. 2013).

Additionally, under the circumstances, to require calculations based upon mathematical exactness would preclude the utility company from obtaining reimbursement and would serve to unjustly enrich a customer who willfully tampered with gas meters. "Recovery for unjust enrichment is predicated upon the equitable principle that one shall not be permitted to enrich himself at the expense of another by receiving property or benefits without making compensation for them." Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87, 99 (R.I. 2006). Specifically, in order to recover for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove that: "'(1) a benefit [was] conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) there must be appreciation by the defendant of such benefit, and (3) there must be an acceptance of such benefit in such circumstances that it would be inequitable for a defendant to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof.'" Id. (quoting Bouchard v. Price, 694 A.2d 670, 673 (R.I. 1997)).

This Court is satisfied that these three elements are met here. National Grid has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it has conferred a significant benefit upon Laundry Basket, that Laundry Basket continued to use National Grid's gas services without paying for them, and that-in accordance with the contract between the parties-Laundry Basket appreciated the benefit and deliberately tampered with gas meters to avoid the obligation to pay for such services. This Court finds that to prevent National Grid from collecting the estimated usage owed to it as a result of Laundry Basket's meter tampering would result in unjust enrichment and breach of the constructive contract between the parties.

IV

Conclusion

After reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that the PUC's decision was not clearly erroneous or affected by error of law. It is neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor is it characterized by abuse of discretion. The decision does not violate constitutional or statutory provisions and it is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, Laundry Basket's appeal is denied, and the decision of the PUC is affirmed. Counsel shall submit the appropriate judgment for entry.


Summaries of

Laundry Basket Inc. v. State

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
Apr 27, 2020
C.A. No. PC-2019-4382 (R.I. Super. Apr. 27, 2020)
Case details for

Laundry Basket Inc. v. State

Case Details

Full title:THE LAUNDRY BASKET INC., Appellant, v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF…

Court:STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT

Date published: Apr 27, 2020

Citations

C.A. No. PC-2019-4382 (R.I. Super. Apr. 27, 2020)