{"id":390,"date":"2013-08-12T14:16:38","date_gmt":"2013-08-12T14:16:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=390"},"modified":"2023-07-31T15:00:27","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T19:00:27","slug":"1-supreme-court-holds-that-a-party-who-is-not-aggrieved-by-a-judgment-cannot-be-qualified-as-an-appellant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/appealability\/1-supreme-court-holds-that-a-party-who-is-not-aggrieved-by-a-judgment-cannot-be-qualified-as-an-appellant\/","title":{"rendered":"(1) Party Who is Not Aggrieved by a Judgment Cannot be Qualified as an Appellant."},"content":{"rendered":"

In Lombardi v. City of Providence, No. 2012-86-Appeal<\/a>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reminded litigants that a party who is not aggrieved by a judgment cannot be qualified as an appellant on appeal.<\/p>\n

In that case, the plaintiff had filed suit against the City of Providence (the \u201cCity\u201d), alleging that it negligently failed to maintain or repair a portion of the sidewalk where the plaintiff had fallen.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1-2.\u00a0 The plaintiff later amended her complaint to add the state as a defendant.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the state never filed a cross-claim against the City.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because the state, not the city was responsible for maintenance and repair of the sidewalk.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The state opposed the City\u2019s motion, arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to which entity was responsible for maintenance and repair of the sidewalk.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The trial court disagreed and entered summary judgment in favor of the City.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 5.\u00a0 Final judgment entered in favor of the City on plaintiff\u2019s claims and the state filed an appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

After oral argument on the state\u2019s appeal, the Court ordered the parties to file memoranda addressing whether the state, having chosen not to file a cross-claim against the City, was a party aggrieved by the Superior Court\u2019s judgment.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

R.I. Gen. Laws \u00a7 9-24-1 sets forth the right of a party to appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court.\u00a0 That statute provides, in relevant part, \u201c[a]ny party aggrieved by a final judgment, decree, or order of the [S]uperior [C]ourt may, within the time prescribed by applicable procedural rules, appeal to the [S]upreme [C]ourt.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Lombardi<\/i>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the rights set forth in R.I. Gen. Laws \u00a7 9-24-1 \u201c\u2018must be read in light of our long-established rule that a person is aggrieved by a judgment when it adversely affects, in a substantial manner, his [or her] personal or property rights.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 6. (quoting Adams v. United Developers, Inc.<\/i>, 397 A.2d 503, 505 (R.I. 1979)).\u00a0 \u201c\u2018[A]n aggrieved party is one whose interest in the lower court decision is actual and practical, as opposed to merely theoretical<\/i>.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. (quoting Adams<\/em>, 397 A.2d at 505).\u00a0 Applying those principles, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that the state was not an aggrieved party because it had not filed a cross-claim against the city.<\/p>\n

Although the plaintiff was a party that was aggrieved by the trial court\u2019s judgment, the plaintiff did not appeal the trial court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Lombardi v. City of Providence, No. 2012-86-Appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reminded litigants that a party who is not aggrieved by a judgment cannot be qualified as an appellant on appeal. In that case, the plaintiff had filed suit against…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[7,66,18,14],"class_list":["post-390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-appealability","tag-appeals","tag-appellant","tag-appellate-practice","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}