Opinion ID: 1988792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contempt Hearing on May 31, 2001

Text: In chronological order, Cesario first seeks review of the order of May 31, 2001, adjudging him in contempt of the restraining order of December 5, 2000. In his petition, Cesario alleges that he was not served properly, nor was any motion to adjudge him in contempt filed. Although a transcript of the hearing was not provided, we discern from the record that Cesario was found to be in contempt, but permitted to purge himself by complying with the restraining order for six months. According to Cesario, the hearing justice also indicated that a $5,000 fine would be imposed if he failed to so comply. In neither Cesario's Brief nor his Appellants Supplemental Memoranda [ sic.]  does he ever mention any purported procedural defects, nor does he allege any error with respect to the hearing on May 31, 2001. Errors not claimed, questions not raised and points not made ordinarily will be treated as waived and not be considered by the court. Article I, Rule 16(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the issue was not fairly raised in Cesario's memoranda, it is therefore waived. See Superior Group Ventures, Inc. v. Apollo II Sign Corp., 712 A.2d 359, 360 (R.I.1998) (per curiam). Moreover, in his Petitioners [ sic ] Request for a Writ of Certiorari, Cesario allows that [n]o harm came of [the] hearing except the Petitioner was adjudged in contempt of a non-threatening phone call, and states that the hearing justice conducted the hearing very responsibly.