Opinion ID: 2422729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jurisdictional Questions

Text: As a threshold matter, we find that alleged errors raised by Heritage that relate to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of Business Regulation as pertains to P.L.2003, ch. 410, § 3 are not properly before us. Review of the record in this anfractuous case leads us to conclude that this jurisdictional issue emanates from a holding in the still pending Superior Court action. In that case, the trial justice determined that the meaning of the term lowest possible price lay more properly within the jurisdiction of the DBR. Heritage did not seek review of that ruling, but instead followed the trial justice's direction to seek relief at the DBR. Thus, the only question properly before us on review is whether the Superior Court appropriately held that the DBR was correct in determining that the term lowest possible price did not give rise to a private cause of action.