This case involves ten minor children (and a proposed class) who were removed from their homes and placed in Rhode Island DCYF custody due to suspected abuse or neglect; they sued state officials to reform the child welfare system, alleging inadequate foster placements, institutionalization, and failures to provide suitable care under federal statutes like the AACWA and the Constitution. After an earlier dismissal for lack of standing by next friends was reversed on appeal, the court addressed the defendants' second motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying doctrines such as Younger abstention to certain claims while permitting others to proceed, including those asserting privately enforceable rights to foster-care maintenance payments. The decision turned on whether the plaintiffs had viable causes of action under federal law and whether federal courts should intervene in ongoing state family-court matters.
This case involved a challenge by a Rhode Island hospitality trade association and two Providence hotels to a city ordinance requiring certain employee retention for a limited period following a change in ownership or management of hospitality businesses. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act under Garmon and Machinists preemption doctrines, as it interfered with collective bargaining, successor employer obligations, and existing contracts, and also violated the Contracts Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and home rule authority. After the city amended the ordinance to shorten the retention period, eliminate minimum wage rules, exclude supervisors, and exempt certain venues like the convention center, the court evaluated the claims on stipulated facts, distinguishing between voluntary hiring and mandated retention while assessing whether the rules set minimum labor standards exempt from preemption.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
The case involves a dispute between Chopmist Hill Fire Department, a nonprofit volunteer fire company leasing a station from the Town of Scituate for $1 per year, and the Town and its officials over the Town's actions to evict the department and seize equipment following unionization efforts by emergency medical technicians. The fire department sued alleging violations of federal and state law, including claims related to the lease, property seizure, and statements by town officials. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied the plaintiff's motion entirely and granted the defendants' motion in part while denying it in part, dismissing certain claims such as malicious prosecution and Rhode Island Open Meetings Law violations, as well as replevin claims for some vehicles, but allowing others to proceed. The decision applied standard summary judgment rules, requiring admissible evidence of genuine material fact disputes and finding insufficient support for the plaintiff's positions on several issues while noting third-party standing limitations on First Amendment claims.
The case involves a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) over whether the Bristol Warren Regional School District must provide a student, S.E., with special education services including residential placement and compensatory education. After an impartial hearing officer ruled in favor of the student and her parent, the school appealed the decision while the parent sought attorney's fees as the prevailing party; the matters were consolidated for review. The district court granted summary judgment to the parent, affirming the hearing officer's determination that the school must provide the requested services. The core reasoning centered on the administrative record showing that S.E.'s behavioral and emotional needs could not be adequately met in a non-residential setting, making the hearing officer's findings supported by the evidence under IDEA standards.
This case arose from a high-speed police pursuit in Pawtucket that began after officers spotted a teal car matching a robbery BOLO and ended when the fleeing vehicle ran a red light, causing a crash that killed passenger Jason Goncalves. Goncalves's estate sued the involved officers, the Pawtucket Police Department, the City, and the police chief, alleging deprivation of constitutional due process rights under federal law as well as state-law negligence. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court reviewed the officers' and witnesses' accounts of when the pursuit began, whether lights and sirens were activated, and the distance maintained, then granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
The case concerns Ashland, Inc.'s effort to recover from other parties costs it claims to have incurred voluntarily for groundwater remediation at the Davis Site, a CERCLA hazardous waste disposal site in Rhode Island. After prior litigation established liability and cost allocations among responsible parties, including through consent decrees and trials involving UTC and others, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the effect of UTC's settlement with the United States and the applicability of earlier response cost allocations. The court denied the motions for summary judgment.
