Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 6/20/2019

Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc.

Citations

212 A.3d 594

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the discovery rule did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims because the “plaintiff knew of his alleged injury underlying his * * * claims at the time he was arrested”
noting that Rhode Island has only applied the continuing tort doctrine once and that the doctrine has not applied in cases where the underlying conduct is considered a “discrete act”
declining to address the issue of whether the hearing justice should have granted more time for discovery under Rule 56(f
affirming grant of summary judgment on Boudreau’s claims against former employer based on Rhode Island Computer Crimes Act, Software Fraud Act and Wiretap Act
declining to address the issue of whether the hearing justice should have granted more time for discovery under Rule 56(f
“We need not look to when every alleged injury accrued, only when injury first accrued to plaintiffs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flaherty, Goldberg, Indeglia, Robinson, Suttell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.