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
374 charsCritter Control, Interstate Pest Control, and J & M Construction were independent contractors hired for their particular skills. None acted under the type of control or supervision of defendant Coc-cia necessary to create an agency relationship. Thus, they were independent contractors, and their statements do not fall within the parameters of Rule 801(d)(2)(D). Conclusion