Visconti & Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Tinney v. Tinney

    770 A.2d 420 (R.I. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that a general objection at trial is insufficient to preserve specific grounds for an appeal not asserted before the trial justice

    Rule 8(c) provides in pertinent part, "When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court on terms, if justice so requires, shall treat the pleadings as if there had been a proper designation." See also Visconti Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 873 (R.I. 1998) (per curiam); Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178, 184 n. 1 (R.I. 1998). In Hawkins, 708 A.2d at 180, a trial justice precluded the Town of Foster (town) from presenting evidence as to campground operators' (campground) violations of applicable ordinances, which the town had raised as affirmative defenses to the campground's complaint to void these ordinances as ultra vires.

  2. American v. Johnson

    945 A.2d 297 (R.I. 2008)   Cited 19 times

    The defendant argues that the trial justice erred in granting American Express's motion for summary judgment because defendant disputed charges on the account with American Express before the account was closed. The defendant contends that the instant case is analogous to the factual situation in Visconti BorenLtd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998). In Visconti the Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff law firm on a book-account claim after the plaintiff submitted invoices concerning the amount that the defendant owed.

  3. Commonwealth Mortgage Assurance v. Disano

    734 A.2d 956 (R.I. 1998)

    In fact, as late as April 20. 1994, defendants' attorney wrote to Marine Midland outlining his client's financial situation and requesting a restructuring of the loan. Summary judgment is proper only if an examination of the admissible evidence, undertaken in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving p arty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Visconti Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998) (per curiam) (citing Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)). In addition, a litigant opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment has the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material issue of fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, conclusory statements, or legal opinions.

  4. 802 Partners, LLC v. Behan Bros., Inc.

    C.A. No. NM 10-526 (R.I. Super. Nov. 20, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Summary judgment is proper "only if an examination of the admissible evidence, undertaken in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Visconti & Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998) (citing Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)). "Furthermore, a litigant opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment has the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material issue of fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, conclusory statements, or legal opinions."

  5. DiBattista v. State, 96-3271 (2001)

    C.A. No. 96-3271 (R.I. Super. Feb. 1, 2001)

    Summary judgment is proper "only if an examination of the admissible evidence, undertaken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Visconti Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998) (per curiam) (citing Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment carries the burden of "proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material fact and cannot rest on the allegations or denials in the pleadings or the conclusions or on legal opinions."

  6. Hurlbut v. State, 90-8363 (2000)

    C.A. No. 90-8363 (R.I. Super. Aug. 25, 2000)

    Summary judgment is proper "only if an examination of the admissible evidence, undertaken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Visconti Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998) (per curiam) (citing Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment carries the burden of "proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material fact and cannot rest on the allegations or denials in the pleadings or the conclusions or on legal opinions."

  7. Orabona v. Cianci, 98-1652 (2000)

    C. A. No. 98-1652 (R.I. Super. Mar. 20, 2000)

    Summary judgment is proper "only if an examination of the admissible evidence, undertaken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Visconti Boren Ltd. v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 712 A.2d 871, 872 (R.I. 1998) (per curiam) (citing Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)). "Furthermore, a litigant opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment has the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material issue of fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, conclusory statements, or legal opinions."