{"id":663,"date":"2014-07-22T23:35:33","date_gmt":"2014-07-22T23:35:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=663"},"modified":"2023-07-25T15:14:22","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T19:14:22","slug":"4-motions-strike-reviewed-abuse-discretion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/trial\/4-motions-strike-reviewed-abuse-discretion\/","title":{"rendered":"(4) MOTIONS TO STRIKE REVIEWED FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Addressing another issue of first impression, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held this term that a trial justice\u2019s decision on a motion to strike brought pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed for abuse of discretion. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.ri.gov\/Courts\/SupremeCourt\/Opinions\/12-248,%2012-249.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Long v. Dell, Inc<\/em>., No. 2012-248-Appeal at 24-25<\/a>. In so holding, the Court reviewed case law interpreting the substantially similar Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that because a the trial court enjoys liberal discretion when ruling on a motion to strike, the trial justice\u2019s decision should be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. <em>Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Addressing another issue of first impression, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held this term that a trial justice\u2019s decision on a motion to strike brought pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed for&#8230;<\/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":[75],"tags":[86,14],"class_list":["post-663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trial","tag-motion-to-strike","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/663","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=663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}