17 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Canario v. Culhanegreen2 sentences2019III Review on Certiorari of the Plan Administrator's Decision Pursuant to what we indicated at oral argument, we now reinstate and grant plaintiff's original petition for a writ of certiorari-originally denied without prejudice by this Court on June 12, 2015-and proceed to review the plan administrator's decision denying plaintiff pension benefits. 5 A Standard of Review This Court "review[s] a pension administrator's interpretation of a pension plan that is governed by federal law under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard-provided the plan accords the administrator discretionary authority to 2003Id. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. at 956-57 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 95 ; see Mullaney v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 103 F.Supp.2d 486, 490 (D.R.I.2000); Coleman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 919 F.Supp. 573, 580 (D.R.I.1996); cf. Canario v. Culhane, 752 A.2d 476, 479 (R.I.2000) (holding that the Superior Court correctly applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to an administrator’s denial of a disability pension to a police officer). | 2 | 2 |
Goncalves v. NMU Pension Trustgreen2 sentences2019III Review on Certiorari of the Plan Administrator's Decision Pursuant to what we indicated at oral argument, we now reinstate and grant plaintiff's original petition for a writ of certiorari-originally denied without prejudice by this Court on June 12, 2015-and proceed to review the plan administrator's decision denying plaintiff pension benefits. 5 A Standard of Review This Court "review[s] a pension administrator's interpretation of a pension plan that is governed by federal law under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard-provided the plan accords the administrator discretionary authority to 2019Moreover, the decision notes that "unlike 'administrative employees,' probate judges, acting probate judges and assistant solicitors do not have set working hours, do not participate in any Town-provided health coverage, do not get holiday pay or overtime, and do not have vacation, sick or any other leave." "Use of the arbitrary and capricious standard means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions interpreting the plan as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such decisions and their decisions were rational, logical, and supported | 1 | 12 |
Coleman v. Metropolitan Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2007This Court may not find that an administrative agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious "when it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation, based on the evidence, for a particular outcome." Id. (quoting Coleman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. , 919 F. Supp. 573 , 580 (D.R.I. 1996)). 2003Id. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. at 956-57 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 95 ; see Mullaney v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 103 F.Supp.2d 486, 490 (D.R.I.2000); Coleman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 919 F.Supp. 573, 580 (D.R.I.1996); cf. Canario v. Culhane, 752 A.2d 476, 479 (R.I.2000) (holding that the Superior Court correctly applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to an administrator’s denial of a disability pension to a police officer). | 1 | 2 |
cluster 522950green1 sentence2003In this case, we hold, the motion justice correctly employed the arbitrary- and-capricious standard of review because the pension plan also provided in section 18.30 that the trustees were to be “the sole judge * * * [of] the application and interpretation of this Plan.” The arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review applies when, as here, the administrators have been granted broad discretionary power to interpret the substantive provisions of the *684 plan, even though the plan does not explicitly use the word “discretion.” See Lakey v. Remington Arms Co., 874 F.2d 541, 544 (8th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Mullaney v. Aetna U.S. Healthcaregreen1 sentence2003Id. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. at 956-57 , 103 L.Ed.2d at 95 ; see Mullaney v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 103 F.Supp.2d 486, 490 (D.R.I.2000); Coleman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 919 F.Supp. 573, 580 (D.R.I.1996); cf. Canario v. Culhane, 752 A.2d 476, 479 (R.I.2000) (holding that the Superior Court correctly applied an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to an administrator’s denial of a disability pension to a police officer). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2007"Use of the arbitrary and capricious standard means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions . . . as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such decisions and their decisions were rational, logical, and supported by substantial evidence." Goncalves v. NMU Pension Trust , 818 A.2d 678 , 682-683 (citing Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. , 144 F.3d 181 , 184 (1st Cir. 1998)). 2007"Use of the arbitrary and capricious standard means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions . . . as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such decisions and their decisions were rational, logical, and supported by substantial evidence." Id. (citing Doyle , 144 F.3d at 184 ). | 9 | 2003–2019 |
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
green
2 sentences2019III Review on Certiorari of the Plan Administrator's Decision Pursuant to what we indicated at oral argument, we now reinstate and grant plaintiff's original petition for a writ of certiorari-originally denied without prejudice by this Court on June 12, 2015-and proceed to review the plan administrator's decision denying plaintiff pension benefits. 5 A Standard of Review This Court "review[s] a pension administrator's interpretation of a pension plan that is governed by federal law under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard-provided the plan accords the administrator discretionary authority to 2019III Review on Certiorari of the Plan Administrator's Decision Pursuant to what we indicated at oral argument, we now reinstate and grant plaintiff's original petition for a writ of certiorari-originally denied without prejudice by this Court on June 12, 2015-and proceed to review the plan administrator's decision denying plaintiff pension benefits. 5 A Standard of Review This Court "review[s] a pension administrator's interpretation of a pension plan that is governed by federal law under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard-provided the plan accords the administrator discretionary authority to | 2 | 2003–2019 |
Grocery v. United States
neutral
2 sentences2003Wise v. U.S., 404 F. Supp. 11 (D. 2002Wise v. U.S, 404 F. Supp. 11 (D. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Newport Shipyard, Inc. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
green
1 sentence2011Mgmt. v. State Labor Relations Bd. , 799 A.2d 274 , 277 (R.I. 2002)) (further citation omitted). "[A]n administrative decision can be vacated if it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence contained in the whole record." Costa v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles , 543 A.2d 1307 , 1309 (R.I. 1988) (citing Newport Shipyard , 484 A.2d 893 .) In addition, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review "means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions . . . as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Costa v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence2011Mgmt. v. State Labor Relations Bd. , 799 A.2d 274 , 277 (R.I. 2002)) (further citation omitted). "[A]n administrative decision can be vacated if it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence contained in the whole record." Costa v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles , 543 A.2d 1307 , 1309 (R.I. 1988) (citing Newport Shipyard , 484 A.2d 893 .) In addition, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review "means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions . . . as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such | 1 | 2011–2011 |
STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. MGMT. v. Labor Bd.
green
1 sentence2011Mgmt. v. State Labor Relations Bd. , 799 A.2d 274 , 277 (R.I. 2002)) (further citation omitted). "[A]n administrative decision can be vacated if it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence contained in the whole record." Costa v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles , 543 A.2d 1307 , 1309 (R.I. 1988) (citing Newport Shipyard , 484 A.2d 893 .) In addition, the arbitrary and capricious standard of review "means that reviewing courts will uphold administrative decisions . . . as long as the administrative interpreters have acted within their authority to make such | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sewall v. Zoning Board of Review of Barrington
neutral
2 sentences2010A zoning board possesses jurisdiction to evaluate the application before it and is required to "prescind[] from wisdom of previous exceptions or variances." Sewall v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Barrington , 93 R.I. 109 , 114 , 172 A.2d 81 , 84 (1961) (appellant's contention that board's denial of application for relief subsequent to prior grants of similar relief constituted an abuse of discretion held to be without merit). 2010A zoning board possesses jurisdiction to evaluate the application before it and is required to "prescind[] from wisdom of previous exceptions or variances." Sewall v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Barrington , 93 R.I. 109 , 114 , 172 A.2d 81 , 84 (1961) (appellant's contention that board's denial of application for relief subsequent to prior grants of similar relief constituted an abuse of discretion held to be without merit). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence2004The Rhode Island Supreme Court has declared that "[a]dministrative fiat and surmise cannot alone sustain an agency's factual findings." State of Rhode Island, Office of the Secretary of State v. Rhode Island State Labor Relations Board et al., 694 A.2d 24 , 28 (R.I. 1997). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
James T. Cross v. United States
green
1 sentence2004Cross v. United States, 512 F.2d 1212 , 1217 n. 8 (4th Cir. 1975). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Donna Cole Winters v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington Corporation Concept Administrators, Inc., a California Corporation
green
1 sentence2003Winters v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 49 F.3d 550 (9th Cir.1995). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
James Guy, Counterclaim v. Southeastern Iron Workers' Welfare Fund, Counterclaim
green
1 sentence2003Guy v. Southeastern Iron Workers’ Welfare Fund, 877 F.2d 37 (11th Cir.1989). 'A legally incorrect interpretation does not automatically signal an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.