Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Citation
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-12-09
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2401900/powers-v-coccia/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
- Powers v. Coccia, 861 A.2d 466 (2004)
Full Text
797 charsThe plaintiffs subsequently filed this timely appeal, arguing that the trial justice in the negligence action erred when she denied plaintiffs’ effort to introduce certain documents that defendant filed in the security deposit action. Those documents included defendant’s affidavit, which incorporated statements that New England Pest Control, Interstate Pest Control, and Critter Control made to him, as well as documents that were incorporated by reference in the affidavit from the pest control companies and a representative of J & M Construction Company. The plaintiffs maintain that under Rule 801(d)(2)(B)(D) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, defendant’s affidavit and its accompanying documents are not hearsay, and therefore should have been admitted by the court. Standard of Review