were not the true reasons. This Court has held that the nonmoving party, opposing a motion for summary judgment, “carries the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed material issue of fact and cannot rest on allegations or denials in the pleadings or on conclusions or legal opinions.” Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1225 (R.I.1996). Therefore, even when we view the evi dence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no issues of material fact existed, and the motion justice properly granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, we affirm the summary judgment for the hospital. 1 . We are of the opinion that, under the non-emergent ci l.App.3d 651, 62 Ill.Dec. 54, 435 N.E.2d 852, 857-58 (1982)
holding it was error for trial court not to grant a continuance when appellant moved in open court to disqualify judge or in the alternative for a continuance to file a proper motion holding states failure to oppose a continuance of preliminary hearing at the request of the defense is not bad faith and presentation of case to grand jury during continuance was proper holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing holding that trial court may modify sentence on the same day as the assessment of the initial sentence and before the court adjourns for the day holding that a telephone request to the court for a continuance the day before the trial was to start was a nullity