From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hulslander v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Nov 18, 1993
633 A.2d 263 (R.I. 1993)

Opinion

No. 93-42-A.

November 18, 1993.

Alison Holm, Gary Yesser, Providence.

Joseph Palumbo, Middletown.


ORDER

This matter came before a panel of the Supreme Court on November 16, 1993 pursuant to an order requiring the parties to appear and to show cause why the issues raised in the plaintiffs' appeal should not be summarily decided.

The plaintiff's appeal a Superior Court order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss made pursuant to Super.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. In rule 12(b)(6) dismissals the allegations must show that there is some insuperable bar to relief. Goldstein v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, 110 R.I. 580, 296 A.2d 112 (1972). We conclude that the passing of the statutory period of limitation provided in G.L. 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-1-14(b) constituted that insuperable bar.

The ruling of the trial justice is affirmed and the plaintiffs' appeal is denied and dismissed.

WEISBERGER, Acting C.J., did not participate.


Summaries of

Hulslander v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Nov 18, 1993
633 A.2d 263 (R.I. 1993)
Case details for

Hulslander v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:Hugh HULSLANDER, et al. v. J. Frederick MURPHY, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: Nov 18, 1993

Citations

633 A.2d 263 (R.I. 1993)

Citing Cases

Narragansett Electric Company v. Minardi

In addition, the Court may order dismissal "[i]n rule 12(b)(6) dismissals [if] the allegations . . . show…

Blouin v. Surgical Sense

Brough v. Foley, 572 A.2d 63, 68 (R.I. 1990) (citingBragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, 102 R.I. 8, 12, 227 A.2d…