Verizon New England Inc. v. Neena S. Savage, in her capacity as Tax Administrator for the State of Rhode Island

Syllabus

The movants, the City of Pawtucket and the City of Cranston, sought review by way of writ of certiorari of a District Court decision and order denying movants' motions to intervene in an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Verizon New England Inc., to challenge the defendant state tax administrator's assessment of tangible personal property tax. The movants asserted that the trial judge erred in concluding that the City of Providence adequately represented the movants' interests in the action by focusing too narrowly on the comparative litigation positions, rather than the distinctive interests of the cities. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in denying the motions. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge's assessment of the four requisites for intervention of right, in accordance with Rule 24 of the District Court Civil Rules, as interpreted by caselaw, was proper and that the movants were required to overcome a presumption of adequate representation and failed to do so. Additionally, because the movants failed to demonstrate a tangible basis and to provide an adequate explanation as to why the City of Providence did not adequately represent the movants' interests, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge's reliance on the respective positions was appropriate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the District Court.