Verizon New England Inc. v. Neena S. Savage, in her capacity as Tax Administrator for the State of Rhode Island

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the denial of motions by Pawtucket and Cranston to intervene in Verizon New England’s administrative appeal concerning tangible personal property tax assessments. The Court held that the municipalities’ interests were adequately represented by Providence, which had been permitted to intervene, and affirmed the District Court’s order denying intervention. The opinion also discusses the standards for intervention as of right and the administration of any potential tax refund or credit.

Holdings

1. Applicants whose litigation goals are aligned with an existing intervenor and whose interests are presumed to be adequately represented must provide a tangible basis for intervention and an adequate explanation why the existing party's representation is inadequate. Pawtucket and Cranston failed to meet that burden.
2. The possibility that a future refund or settlement might affect the cities' budgets does not constitute a tangible basis for intervention or establish inadequate representation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pawtucket and Cranston satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the District Court Civil Rules.
2. Whether the cities overcame the presumption that Providence adequately represented their interests when their litigation goals were aligned and their asserted fiscal and budgetary concerns were indirect and contingent.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion or committed clear error by denying the cities' motions to intervene.

Disposition

affirmed