agency rule in Rhode Island

2011"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor , 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission , 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2009"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor . 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission . 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2011The courts must "give deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute [or rule] that it has been charged with administering and enforcing, provided that the agency's construction is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized." Arnold v. Rhode Island Dep't of Labor and Training Bd. of Review , 822 A.2d 164 , 169 (R.I. 2003) (citing In re Lallo , 768 A.2d 921 , 926 (R.I. 2001)); see also Lyman v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 693 A.2d 1030 , 1031 (R.I. 1997). *Page 8 As such, the courts remain the final arbiters of questions of construction of statut

2009The courts must "give deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute [or rule] that it has been charged with administering and enforcing, provided that the agency's construction is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized." Arnold v. Rhode Island Dep't of Labor and Training Bd. of Review . 822 A.2d 164 , 169 (R.I. 2003) (citing In re Lallo . 768 A.2d 921 , 926 (R.I. 2001)); see also Lyman v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island. 693 A.2d 1030 , 1031 (R.I. 1997).

2011The courts must "give deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute [or rule] that it has been charged with administering and enforcing, provided that the agency's construction is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized." Arnold v. Rhode Island Dep't of Labor and Training Bd. of Review , 822 A.2d 164 , 169 (R.I. 2003) (citing In re Lallo , 768 A.2d 921 , 926 (R.I. 2001)); see also Lyman v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 693 A.2d 1030 , 1031 (R.I. 1997). *Page 8 As such, the courts remain the final arbiters of questions of construction of statut

2009The courts must "give deference to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute [or rule] that it has been charged with administering and enforcing, provided that the agency's construction is neither clearly erroneous nor unauthorized." Arnold v. Rhode Island Dep't of Labor and Training Bd. of Review . 822 A.2d 164 , 169 (R.I. 2003) (citing In re Lallo . 768 A.2d 921 , 926 (R.I. 2001)); see also Lyman v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island. 693 A.2d 1030 , 1031 (R.I. 1997).

2011"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor , 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission , 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2009"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor . 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission . 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2011"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor , 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission , 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2009"Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review." Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island , 895 A.2d 106 , 110 (R.I. 2006) (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor . 732 A.2d 55 , 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission . 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)).

2007As the Connecticut Supreme Court noted in Pet v. Dept. of Health Servs. , 638 A.2d 6 , 19-20 (Conn. 1994), an agency hearing satisfies a respondent's right to due process when each hearing committee member has either heard all the evidence or read the transcript in its entirety.

2007Under this agency rule, a party may petition the Director of the DEM, and "ask for a declaratory ruling as to the applicability of the agency's rule to the petitioner's particular circumstances." Ambeault v. *Page 22 Burrillville Racing Ass'n , 118 R.I. 310 , 315 , 373 A.2d 807 , 809 (1977).

2007Under this agency rule, a party may petition the Director of the DEM, and "ask for a declaratory ruling as to the applicability of the agency's rule to the petitioner's particular circumstances." Ambeault v. *Page 22 Burrillville Racing Ass'n , 118 R.I. 310 , 315 , 373 A.2d 807 , 809 (1977).

2007Pierce , 770 A.2d at 870 . 12 A plaintiff need not have requested that the agency rule on the validity of its own regulation before bringing a declaratory judgment action.

2007It has been long held that hearsay is more liberally admitted in an agency hearing than in a jury trial, "reflecting [the] traditional division of function between judge and jury." DePasquale v. Harrington , 599 A.2d 314 , 316 (R.I. 1991).

2007In fact, "[m]any of the rules surrounding the exclusion of hearsay in jury trials are meant to prevent juries, uninitiated in the evaluation of evidence, from hearing unreliable or confusing testimony and rendering a verdict based on such evidence." Id.

2006Supreme Ct. April 14, 2006), slip op. at 5 ("Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review.") (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 a.2d 55, 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission, 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)); Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484 , 493 (9th Cir. 1987)) (noting that "interpretations of [agency]

2006Supreme Ct. April 14, 2006), slip op. at 5 ("Although factual findings of an administrative agency are afforded great deference, a dispute involving statutory interpretation [or, by analogy, an agency rule adopted pursuant to an enabling statute] is a question of law to which [the courts] apply de novo review.") (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 a.2d 55, 60 (R.I. 1999); City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission, 566 A.2d 1305 , 1307 (R.I. 1989)); Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484 , 493 (9th Cir. 1987)) (noting that "interpretations of [agency]

2004Rather than confine themselves to DeCastro's ability to perform the full complement of duties as Executive High Sheriff, the Board created a completely different analysis by considering whether the evidence in the record established his inability to perform in his former position as Bristol County Sheriff. "[E]ven though an agency decision may have been supported by substantial evidence, where other evidence in the record detracts from that relied upon by the agency [the court] may properly find that the agency rule was arbitrary and capricious." American Tunaboat Ass'n v. Baldridge, 738 F.2d

1995There is precedent for our resolution of this appeal in the case of Shapiro v. Albany Insurance Co., 163 A. 747 (R.I.1933) (Per Curiam).

1979This exception, as we said in Altman v. School Committee, 115 R.I. 399 , 347 A.2d 37 (1975), “should apply when a potential challenger to an administrative action is disqualified by a literal application of the customary test and when its disqualification will inevitably result in the challenged action’s, notwithstanding its possible arbitrariness, taking on a conclusive character.” Id. at 404 , 347 A.2d at 39 . *395 Although our reasoning to this point strongly suggests that the commissioners in this case had standing under sections 15(a) and (b) of the APA to prosecute an appeal from the adm

1979This exception, as we said in Altman v. School Committee, 115 R.I. 399 , 347 A.2d 37 (1975), “should apply when a potential challenger to an administrative action is disqualified by a literal application of the customary test and when its disqualification will inevitably result in the challenged action’s, notwithstanding its possible arbitrariness, taking on a conclusive character.” Id. at 404 , 347 A.2d at 39 . *395 Although our reasoning to this point strongly suggests that the commissioners in this case had standing under sections 15(a) and (b) of the APA to prosecute an appeal from the adm

1979This exception, as we said in Altman v. School Committee, 115 R.I. 399 , 347 A.2d 37 (1975), “should apply when a potential challenger to an administrative action is disqualified by a literal application of the customary test and when its disqualification will inevitably result in the challenged action’s, notwithstanding its possible arbitrariness, taking on a conclusive character.” Id. at 404 , 347 A.2d at 39 . *395 Although our reasoning to this point strongly suggests that the commissioners in this case had standing under sections 15(a) and (b) of the APA to prosecute an appeal from the adm

1979This exception, as we said in Altman v. School Committee, 115 R.I. 399 , 347 A.2d 37 (1975), “should apply when a potential challenger to an administrative action is disqualified by a literal application of the customary test and when its disqualification will inevitably result in the challenged action’s, notwithstanding its possible arbitrariness, taking on a conclusive character.” Id. at 404 , 347 A.2d at 39 . *395 Although our reasoning to this point strongly suggests that the commissioners in this case had standing under sections 15(a) and (b) of the APA to prosecute an appeal from the adm