Kimball v. Kelly

Supreme Court of Rhode Island February 20, 1941

Kimball v. Kelly, 66 R.I. 169 (R.I. 1941)

Baker, Capotosto, Condon, Flynn, Moss

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

After the filing of our opinion the complainant, by leave of court, filed a motion for reargument. We *170have carefully considered said motion and the reasons- assigned therefor.

Charles R. Easton, for complainant. James J. Fogarty, Jr., Voigt, Wright, Munroe & Clason, for respondents.

However, as the motion contains no matter which was not fully considered and passed upon before the filing of our opinion, the motion is denied and dismissed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Herbert M. Kimball, Admr. v. Mary Kelly
Status: Published