Narrative Opinion Summary
A hearing panel addressed the appeal by plaintiffs Thomas J. McAfee and Paul V. McAfee against the summary judgment favoring defendant John J. O’Hare regarding damages from a collision. The court found that O'Hare's prior action, which resulted in a default judgment against Thomas J. McAfee, constituted res judicata, preventing McAfee from pursuing the current litigation. Citing Zalobowski v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, the court upheld the trial justice's decision to grant summary judgment to O'Hare. The plaintiffs' appeal was denied and dismissed, and the summary judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed. The order was officially entered on March 26, 1992, with Chief Justice Fay and Justice Murray not participating.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs' appeal was reviewed and subsequently denied and dismissed by the court.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs' appeal was denied and dismissed, and the summary judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed.
Application of Res Judicatasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the doctrine of res judicata to prevent Thomas J. McAfee from pursuing litigation against John J. O’Hare due to a prior default judgment.
Reasoning: The court found that O'Hare's prior action, which resulted in a default judgment against Thomas J. McAfee, constituted res judicata, preventing McAfee from pursuing the current litigation.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the summary judgment in favor of John J. O’Hare, agreeing with the trial justice's application of summary judgment standards.
Reasoning: Citing Zalobowski v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, the court upheld the trial justice's decision to grant summary judgment to O'Hare.