 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co.5/27/2005
m non conveniens). The Rhode Island Legislature, however, adopted a form of the doctrine when it approved the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Act) in 1978. See P.L. 1978, ch. 185, ยง 1. In fact, all 50 states adopted some form of the Act by 1984. Linda M. De Melis, Note, Interstate Child Custody and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: The Continuing Search for a National Standard, 45 Hastings L.J. 1329, 1330 n.5 (1994). The Act allows the Family Court to "decline to exercise its jurisdiction . . . if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum," and that a court of another location is more appropriate. Section 15-14.1-19. In Rhode Island, however, the doctrine has not been applied outside child custody cases.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN RHODE ISLAND
Pursuant to the Presiding Justice's Order, Super. Ct. Admin. Order, No. 96-2 (Jan. 29, 1996), this Court has been responsible for the case management of all asbestos-related litigation.
At present, no litigation crisis exists in Rhode Island. More specifically, this Court is not mired in asbestos litigation. There has been no deluge of asbestos cases over the past two decades.
Although the asbestos docket has been active, it has been neither unmanageable nor unwieldy. On the contrary, due to the efficiency and diligence of both plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel, this Court has witnessed the resolution of scores of asbestos and/or asbestos-related matters. That plaintiffs and defendants have their claims and defenses heard as promptly as possible is essential. It is of paramount importance.
Asbestos and asbestos-related litigation defies containment by boundaries. This Court will not deny these plaintiffs their right to pursue claims in this Court.
If and when this docket becomes too burdensome or inefficient, or if and when the management and assignment of this docket changes, then this, or similar motions, may be revisited. At present, such situations are neither extant nor looming on the horizon. Thus, there are no compelling reasons to grant plaintiff's motion and the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, this Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Counsel shall submit the appropriate order for entry.
Page 1 2 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|