Rhode Island Supreme Court

Highest court in the U. S. state of Rhode Island

The Rhode Island Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the U. S. State of Rhode Island. The Court consists of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices, all selected by the Governor of Rhode Island from candidates vetted by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Each justice enjoys lifetime tenure and no mandatory retirement age, similar to Federal judges. Justices may be removed only if impeached for improper conduct by a vote of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and convicted by trial in the Rhode Island Senate.

In 1747, the Rhode Island General Assembly authorized the creation of a Superior Court of Judicature, Court of Assize, and General Gaol Delivery, consisting of one chief justice and four associates, all serving one year terms. The 1747 enactment replaced an earlier appeals court of the same name, which had been composed of the governor or deputy governor and at least six of the elected "assistants," which dated to 1729 under the same name and the composition dated back to the 1663 charter when it was known as the "General Court of Trials." This court had replaced an even earlier court formed under the Charter of 1644, a 1647 enactment of a code of laws, and a 1651 amendment creating appellate jurisdiction. Most of the judges during the 18th century were laymen, merchants or farmers and did not possess formal legal training, and therefore the court did not explicitly follow English common law. Parties, however, could still appeal to either the British monarch, English courts or the General Assembly until independence in 1776. In 1747 the General Assembly appointed the first Chief Justice, Gideon Cornell, who was a judge, farmer, and merchant, and the second, Joshua Babcock, a Yale educated physician. Stephen Hopkins, later signatory of the Declaration of Independence, served as the third Chief Justice from 1747 to 1755. Angel v. Murray, 113 R. I. 482, 322 A.2d 630 (1974), which was the first case to apply the UCC's reasoning on contract modification to service contracts. The rule states that a contract does not always need additional consideration for modification, provided certain conditions are present. Picard v. Barry Pontiac Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R. I. 1995), a tort case, which is often used as an example of battery in tort textbooks.