Opinion ID: 1941581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Final Observation

Text: The fact that this action was filed in the Superior Court and was then, after it was dismissed by that court, appealed to this Court is more than a little disturbing. We would have thought that venerable principles of American jurisprudence (such as the res judicata bar and the prohibition against double recovery), not to mention the straightforward language of § 9-33-2(d), would have counseled against the commencement of this civil action. It must be stated that we did give serious consideration to imposing sanctions even in the absence of a motion for same. In the end however, we have decided not to do soprimarily because § 9-33-2(d) has never previously been construed by us with respect to the issues discussed in this opinion. Now that we have construed those aspects of the statute, however, we would be disinclined to abstain from imposing sanctions in a similar situation in the future, whether involving these parties or others. As we come to the conclusion of this opinion, we specifically direct the attention of the plaintiffs and their counsel to the following admonition contained in a recent opinion of ours in an unrelated case: We are more than persuaded that the instant plaintiffs have had their day in courtand then some. The time has come for this litigation to end. Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Review of Westerly, 899 A.2d 517, 520 (R.I. 2006) (mem.). There is nothing more to be said; this case is over. See Arena v. City of Providence, 919 A.2d 379, 396 (R.I.2007) (It is time for this litigation to end.); see also Ryan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 941 A.2d 174, 188 (R.I.2008); Gunn v. Union Railroad Co., 27 R.I. 320, 337, 62 A. 118, 125 (1905) (quoting with approval an ancient Latin maxim Interest republicae ut sit finis litium which translates as follows: It is in the interest of the republic that there be an end to litigation.).