Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rodrigues v. Stategreen1 sentence2013This Court consistently has held that “ ‘statutes and their amendments are applied prospectively,’ absent ‘clear, strong language, or by necessary implication that the Legislature intended a statute to have retroactive application * * Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 318 (R.I.2009) (quoting Ducally v. State, 809 A.2d 472, 474 (R.I.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Ducally v. Stategreen1 sentence2013This Court consistently has held that “ ‘statutes and their amendments are applied prospectively,’ absent ‘clear, strong language, or by necessary implication that the Legislature intended a statute to have retroactive application * * Rodrigues v. State, 985 A.2d 311, 318 (R.I.2009) (quoting Ducally v. State, 809 A.2d 472, 474 (R.I.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Corvettegreen1 sentence2007The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7, of the Rhode Island Constitution, both say that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” The double jeopardy clauses act as safeguards to protect against: “ ‘[1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.’ ” State v. Ciolli, 725 A.2d 268, 270 (R.I.1999) (quoting State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Corvette, 695 A.2d 502, 505 (R.I.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ciolligreen1 sentence2007The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7, of the Rhode Island Constitution, both say that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” The double jeopardy clauses act as safeguards to protect against: “ ‘[1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.’ ” State v. Ciolli, 725 A.2d 268, 270 (R.I.1999) (quoting State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Corvette, 695 A.2d 502, 505 (R.I.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also | 1 | 1 |
Bustamante v. Wallgreen1 sentence2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Second, the state maintains that Evans’s videotaped recantation was inadmissible hearsay and, therefore, the hearing justice abused his discretion by allowing the recantation as substantive evidence. 1 The Credibility of Evans’s Recantation “This Court will not disturb a trial justice’s factual findings made on an application for post-conviction relief absent clear error or a showing that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.” Young v. State, 877 A.2d 625, 628 (R.I.2005) (quoting Bustamante v. Wall, 866 A.2d 516, 522 (R.I.2005)); see also | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Terrel Barros
green
1 sentence2026Facts and Procedural History We glean the underlying facts in this case from State v. Barros, 148 A.3d 168 (R.I. 2016), in which this Court affirmed Mr. Barros’s conviction for first-degree murder, a number of firearm charges, and felony assault; facts from the postconviction-relief proceedings are taken from the hearing justice’s decision and the record of those proceedings. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. DeCiantis
green
1 sentence1988In support of this contention, the state cites State v. DeCiantis, supra, claiming that defendant merely provided the trial justice with the bare bones of the alleged error by simply referring to the omitted requests by number. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.