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.
22 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corporation Service, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2000This Court cannot "ignore the settled principles that proper and adequate notice of a zoning board hearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that action taken by a board which has not first satisfied the notice requirements is a nullity." Corporation Service, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of East Greenwich, 114 R.I. 178 , 180, 330 A.2d 402 , 404 (1975) (citations omitted). 2000This Court cannot "ignore the settled principles that proper and adequate notice of a zoning board hearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and that action taken by a board which has not first satisfied the notice requirements is a nullity." Corporation Service, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of East Greenwich, 114 R.I. 178 , 180, 330 A.2d 402 , 404 (1975) (citations omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2009See Bernuth , 770 A.2d at 401 (R.I. 2001). 5 To reiterate, according to the minutes from the 2001 Zoning Board hearing, the Zoning Board granted Wal-Mart a special-use permit allowing construction of a fuel station on the subject lot, but conditioned its approval on "[s]trict compliance with plans and testimony as presented to the Board" at the 2001 hearing. *Page 1 | 1 | 1 |
Ridgewood Homeowners Ass'n v. Mignaccagreen1 sentence2005See Ridgewood Homeowners Ass'n v. Mignacca, 813 A.2d 965 , 977 (R.I. 2003) (observing that the record contained " no evidence whatsoever that `the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land' or that `the hardship that will be suffered by the owner of the subject property if the dimensional variance is not granted shall amount to more than a mere inconvenience, which shall mean that there is no other reasonable alternative to enjoy a legally permitted beneficial use of one's property . . .' as required by the [applicable] Code. . . ." | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . 2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . 2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . | 1 | 1 |
Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences1998However, their inclusion constitutes harmless error. 5 In contrast, "A `true' variance is relief to use land for a use not permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance." Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review of Foster , 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991); see also Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence , 238 A.2d 353 , 356, (1968). 6 Mr. Hogan is a licensed broker and appraiser, qualified as an expert on behalf of the Bucklins at the Zoning Board hearing. 1998However, their inclusion constitutes harmless error. 5 In contrast, "A `true' variance is relief to use land for a use not permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance." Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review of Foster , 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991); see also Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence , 238 A.2d 353 , 356, (1968). 6 Mr. Hogan is a licensed broker and appraiser, qualified as an expert on behalf of the Bucklins at the Zoning Board hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences1995Furthermore, In Dupont Circle Citizens Association v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 403 A.2d 314 (1979), the Court found that a citizens association that had received proper notice of a zoning board hearing did have standing to assert the alleged failure of the zoning board to notify in writing other occupants of property situated near the subject property. 1995The Dupont Court noted ". . . a party without actual notice could hardly be expected to appear at the proceeding to raise the issue " and further refused to ". . . speculate about how many more would have attended the hearing if proper notice had been given, or about whether additional attendance would have contributed to the dialogue." Id. at 317. | 1 | 1 |
Mack Construction Co. v. Quonset Real Estate Corp.green1 sentence1992See generally Mack Construction Co. v. Quonset Real Estate Corp., 84 R.I. 190 , 122 A.2d 163 (1956), In Hirsch , we held that attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard. | 1 | 1 |
MacK Construction Co. v. Quonset Real Estate Corp.green1 sentence1992See generally Mack Construction Co. v. Quonset Real Estate Corp., 84 R.I. 190 , 122 A.2d 163 (1956), In Hirsch , we held that attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caran v. Freda
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Toohey v. Kilday
green
2 sentences2004However, in considering a zoning case before it, "a board may consider probative factors within its knowledge . . . or may acquire adequate knowledge through observation and inspection on a view." Toohey, 415 A.2d at 737 . 2001However, in considering a zoning case before it, "a board may consider probative factors within its knowledge . . . or may acquire adequate knowledge through observation and inspection on a view." Toohey v. Kilday, 415 A.2d 732 (R.I. 1980). | 2 | 2001–2004 |
Carroll v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Providence
green
2 sentences2011It is well settled that notice of a zoning board hearing is "purposed upon affording those having an interest an opportunity to present facts which might shed light on the issue before the board [ . . . ] and upon assisting the board to do substantial justice to an applicant while preserving the spirit of the ordinance under consideration." Carroll v. Zoning Bd of Review of the City of Providence , 104 R.I. 676 , 679 , 248 A.2d 321 , 323 (1968) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 2011It is well settled that notice of a zoning board hearing is "purposed upon affording those having an interest an opportunity to present facts which might shed light on the issue before the board [ . . . ] and upon assisting the board to do substantial justice to an applicant while preserving the spirit of the ordinance under consideration." Carroll v. Zoning Bd of Review of the City of Providence , 104 R.I. 676 , 679 , 248 A.2d 321 , 323 (1968) (citations and internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hillside Associates v. Stravato
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ryan v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of New Shoreham
green
1 sentence2011As alluded to above, proper notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a zoning board's exercise of review, and thus, any "`action taken by a [zoning] board that has not satisfied the notice requirements is a nullity.'" Ryan v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of New Shoreham , 656 A.2d 612 , 615 (R.I. 1995) (quoting Corporation Serv., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of East Greenwich , 114 R.I. 178 , 180 , 330 A.2d 402 , 404 (1975)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jeff Anthony Properties v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Providence
green
2 sentences2010Given the Rhode Island Supreme Court's recent decision in Jeff Anthony Properties v. The Zoning Board of Review of North Providence , 853 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2004) finding that the notice requirement was not jurisdictional, and the fact that Appellant has since complied with § 45-24-69.1 , the Court will not deny the appeal on these grounds. 2010Given the Rhode Island Supreme Court's recent decision in Jeff Anthony Properties v. The Zoning Board of Review of North Providence , 853 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2004) finding that the notice requirement was not jurisdictional, and the fact that Appellant has since complied with § 45-24-69.1 , the Court will not deny the appeal on these grounds. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Irish Partnership v. Rommel
green
1 sentence2009The minutes from the 2001 Zoning Board hearing specify that the Board's reason for granting Wal-Mart's application for a special-use permit was that the permit "will serve the convenience and welfare of the general public [and] will give the owner the full beneficial use of the property." While this declaration tracks language from § 15.8-2 of the Ordinance, the statement is wholly conclusional and "failed to apply the proper legal principles, thereby making judicial review of the board's work impossible." Irish P'ship , 518 A.2d at 358 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sciacca v. Caruso
green
1 sentence2009Moreover, the minutes from the 2001 hearing fail to recount any testimony or discussion that transpired at the hearing, thereby failing to preserve any substantive information relating to the grant of the special-use permit. 4 Consequently, this Court is unable to determine what constitutes "[s]trict compliance" with the "plans and testimony as presented to the Board." *Page 14 The filing of a formal written decision might have fleshed out the Board's "findings of facts and reasons for the action taken," Sciacca , 769 A.2d at 585 ; however, based on the administrative record provided, no separ | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Steinberg v. Obstetrics-Gynecological & Infertility Group, P.C.
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Zeilstra v. Barrington Zoning Board of Review
green
1 sentence2003Zeilstra, 417 A.2d at 307 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Staller v. Cranston Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2002The Zoning Board's error in granting MRSJ's request to amend its petition without the required readvertisement was a "mistake" that went to "substance" rather than "form." Staller v. Cranston Zoning Board of Review, 100 R.I. 340 , 341, 215 A.2d 418 . 419 (R.I. 1965). 2002The Zoning Board's error in granting MRSJ's request to amend its petition without the required readvertisement was a "mistake" that went to "substance" rather than "form." Staller v. Cranston Zoning Board of Review, 100 R.I. 340 , 341, 215 A.2d 418 . 419 (R.I. 1965). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Estate of Konigunda v. Town of Coventry
green
1 sentence2001“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 799 (R.I.1989) (quoting State v. Brown, 121 R.I. 422, 426 , 399 A.2d 1222, 1225 (1979) and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). “[Attendance at a zoning board hearing by a property owner who was entitled to notice constituted a waiver since the objective of the notice requirement was to give property owners an opportunity to be heard.” Estate of Konigunda, 605 A.2d at 836 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1998However, their inclusion constitutes harmless error. 5 In contrast, "A `true' variance is relief to use land for a use not permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance." Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review of Foster , 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991); see also Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence , 238 A.2d 353 , 356, (1968). 6 Mr. Hogan is a licensed broker and appraiser, qualified as an expert on behalf of the Bucklins at the Zoning Board hearing. 1998However, their inclusion constitutes harmless error. 5 In contrast, "A `true' variance is relief to use land for a use not permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance." Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review of Foster , 591 A.2d 1220 (R.I. 1991); see also Westminster Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence , 238 A.2d 353 , 356, (1968). 6 Mr. Hogan is a licensed broker and appraiser, qualified as an expert on behalf of the Bucklins at the Zoning Board hearing. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
DiMillio v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of South Kingstown
green
2 sentences1992DiMillio v. Zoning Board of South Kingstown, 574 A.2d 754 (1990); R.J.E.P. 1992DiMillio v. Zoning Board of South Kingstown, 574 A.2d 754 (1990); R.J.E.P. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Board of Zoning Appeals v. McKinney
green
2 sentences1971While the authorities generally are divided on the standing of a zoning board to challenge a judicial decision re *353 versing one of its rulings, 1 in this state a zoning board is not a partisan and “[i]t has no interest, personal or official, in the matters which come before it other than to decide them according to the law and the proved fact * * Board of Zoning Appeals v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 561 , 199 A. 540, 544 . 1971While the authorities generally are divided on the standing of a zoning board to challenge a judicial decision re *353 versing one of its rulings, 1 in this state a zoning board is not a partisan and “[i]t has no interest, personal or official, in the matters which come before it other than to decide them according to the law and the proved fact * * Board of Zoning Appeals v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 561 , 199 A. 540, 544 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Ray v. Luckett
green
1 sentence1971Ray v. Luckett, (Ky.) 332 S.W.2d 848 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jacques v. Zoning Board of Review
green
1 sentence1970I. 284, 288, 12 A.2d 222, 224 , the rationale underlying Jacques does not obtain where the proceedings are in the Superior Court. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.