administrative finality doctrine in Rhode Island

2023“Rhode Island * * * [has] promulgated a doctrine of administrative finality.” Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 808 (R.I. 2000).

2011Under the doctrine of administrative finality, "when an administrative agency receives an application for relief and denies it, a subsequent application for the same relief may not be granted absent a showing of a change in material circumstances during the time between the two applications." Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs. v. Nolan , 755 A.2d 799 , 808 (citing Audette v. Coletti , 539 A.2d 520 , 521-22 (R.I. 1988)).

2023Compare May-Day Realty Corporation, 107 R.I. at 237 , 267 A.2d at 402 (holding that a permit request to erect two ten-family apartment houses was not substantially similar to a permit request to construct a single apartment building containing one hundred units such that the - 30 - doctrine of administrative finality did not apply), with Costa v. Gagnon, 455 A.2d 310, 313 (R.I. 1983) (holding that two separate petitions seeking approval of auto- body-shop use were substantially similar despite the fact that each petition asserted a different legal theory and therefore the second petition was b

2023Compare May-Day Realty Corporation, 107 R.I. at 237 , 267 A.2d at 402 (holding that a permit request to erect two ten-family apartment houses was not substantially similar to a permit request to construct a single apartment building containing one hundred units such that the - 30 - doctrine of administrative finality did not apply), with Costa v. Gagnon, 455 A.2d 310, 313 (R.I. 1983) (holding that two separate petitions seeking approval of auto- body-shop use were substantially similar despite the fact that each petition asserted a different legal theory and therefore the second petition was b

2011Under the doctrine of administrative finality, "when an administrative agency receives an application for relief and denies it, a subsequent application for the same relief may not be granted absent a showing of a change in material circumstances during the time between the two applications." Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs. v. Nolan , 755 A.2d 799 , 808 (citing Audette v. Coletti , 539 A.2d 520 , 521-22 (R.I. 1988)).

2011Pursuant to the doctrine of administrative finality, "when an administrative agency receives an application for relief and denies it, a subsequent application for the same relief may not be granted absent a showing of a change in material circumstances during the time between the two applications." Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs. , 755 A.2d at 808 (citing Audette v. Coletti , 539 A.2d 520 , 521-22 (R.I. 1988)).

2023Compare May-Day Realty Corporation, 107 R.I. at 237 , 267 A.2d at 402 (holding that a permit request to erect two ten-family apartment houses was not substantially similar to a permit request to construct a single apartment building containing one hundred units such that the - 30 - doctrine of administrative finality did not apply), with Costa v. Gagnon, 455 A.2d 310, 313 (R.I. 1983) (holding that two separate petitions seeking approval of auto- body-shop use were substantially similar despite the fact that each petition asserted a different legal theory and therefore the second petition was b

1999The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that "[i]n zoning law the doctrine of administrative finality bars `successive applications for substantially similar relief unless a substantial or material change of circumstances has occurred in the interval between the two proceedings.'" Costa v. Gagnon , 455 A.2d 310 , 313 (R.I. 1983) (quoting May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtucket , 107 R.I. 235 , 237, 276 A.2d 400 , 401-02 (1970)).

2002The application of the doctrine of administrative finality, as stated in Burke, "was not intended to foreclose jurisdiction in such boards to hear successive applications . . . [T]he authority of a board to reverse a prior determination is a qualified one and is not to be exercised unless there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstances or conditions intervening between the two decisions." Id., 103 R.I. at 408 .

2002The application of the doctrine of administrative finality, as stated in Burke, "was not intended to foreclose jurisdiction in such boards to hear successive applications . . . [T]he authority of a board to reverse a prior determination is a qualified one and is not to be exercised unless there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstances or conditions intervening between the two decisions." Id., 103 R.I. at 408 .

2001Day v. Zoning Board of Review of Cranston, 92 R.I. 136 , 140, 167 A.2d 136 , 139 (1962).

2000Day v. Zoning Board of Review of Cranston, 92 R.I. 136, 140 , 167 A.2d 136, 139 (1961).

2001See, e.g., Au-dette v. Coletti, 539 A.2d 520, 521 (R.I.1988); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtucket, 107 R.I. 235, 237 , 267 A.2d 400, 401-02 (1970); Gilman v. Zoning Board of Review of West Warwick, 103 R.I. 612, 613 , 240 A.2d 159, 160 (1968) (per curiam); Burke v. Zoning Board of Review of North Providence, 103 R.I. 404, 408-09 , 238 A.2d 50, 53 (1968); Marks v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence, 98 R.I. 405, 408 , 203 A.2d 761 , *1144 764 (1964) (setting out this Court’s reasoning for rejecting application of res judicata to zoning cases).

1983In zoning law the doctrine of administrative finality bars “successive applications for substantially similar relief unless a substantial or material change of circumstances has occurred in the interval between the two proceedings.” May-Day Realty Corp. v. Board of Appeals of Pawtucket, 107 R.I. 235, 237 , 267 A.2d 400, 401-02 (1970); Gilman v. Zoning Board of Review of West Warwick, 103 R.I. 612 , 240 A.2d 159 (1968).

2015See Berkovitz v. Home Box Office, Inc., 89 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir.1996) (vacating the sua sponte grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff, who, as “the targeted party,” had not had “an adequate opportunity to dodge the bullet”).

2006See Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd., 755 A.2d at 808 (citing Hester v. Timothy, 108 R.I. 376 , 384 , 275 A.2d 637 , 641 (1971)).

2006See Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd., 755 A.2d at 808 (citing Hester v. Timothy, 108 R.I. 376 , 384 , 275 A.2d 637 , 641 (1971)).

1999See Dal Maso v. Board of County Commissioners of Prince George's County , 34 A.2d 464 , 467 (Md. 1943) (a board or agency given legislative powers may reconsider a vote just as the legislature may do so); Alianiello v. Town Council of the Town of East Providence , 117 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1955) (town council acts as a legislative body when it votes to amend a town zoning ordinance). 7 According to plaintiff, these rules of procedure were amended in 1998, after the decision in question, to provide for greater openness and public participation. 8 The Open Meetings Law, which was amended on July 20, 19

1994See infra at 7, Lopes v. Board of Appeals of Fair Haven, 27 Mass. App. 754, 543 N.E.2d 421 (1989), review denied 406 Mass. 1103 , 548 N.E.2d 887 .

1988Redman v. Zoning and Platting Board of Review of Narragansett, 491 A.2d 998, 999 (R.I.1985) We hold that the trial justice misapplied the applicable law in ignoring the doctrine of administrative finality, as set forth by this court on numerous occasions.