Rose v. Standard Oil Co. of N.Y., Inc., s. 628, 629, 630.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 628, 629, 630.,s. 628, 629, 630. |
| Citation | 188 A. 71 |
| Parties | Manuel ROSE v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Inc. SAME v. SOCONY VACUUM CORPORATION. Joseph ROCHA v. SAME. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
On respondents' motions for reargument.
For original opinion, see 185 A. 251.
William A. Needham, Albert A. Baker, and Baker & Spicer, all of Providence, for petitioners.
Francis I. McCanna, Edward M. McEntee, and Lee & McCanna, all of Providence, for respondents.
After the filing of our opinion, the Standard Oil Company of New York, Inc., and the Socony-Vacuum Corporation, by leave of court, filed a motion for a reargument of these cases. We have considered the motion and find that it does not set forth any sufficient reason or reasons why there should be a reargument of these cases.
The motion for a reargument is therefore denied and dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
...Co., 182 Pa. 473, 38 A. 399, 61 Am.St.Rep. 716; Rose v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 56 R.I. 272, 185 A. 251, reargument denied, 56 R.I. 472, 188 A. 71; Braun v. Iannotti, 54 R.I. 469, 175 A. 656; Frost v. Berkeley Phosphate Co., 42 S.C. 402, 20 S.E. 280, 26 L.R.A. 693, 46 Am.St. Rep. 736;......