application for a special exception in Rhode Island

13 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2008 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Salve Regina College v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen ri · 1991 · cited in 3 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 1994–2003 2 sentences 2003Salve Regina , 594 A.2d at 881-82 (holding that the zoning board's denial of the requested special use permit was an abuse of discretion because it did not hear expert testimony or other evidence adverse to the applicant); Toohey , 415 A.2d at 737 (restating the Court's longstanding holding that lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the effect of a proposed use on property values and traffic conditions have no probative force with respect to an application for a special exception). 2002Salve Regina, 594 A.2d at 881-82 (holding that the zoning board's denial of the requested special use permit was an abuse of discretion because it did not hear expert testimony or other evidence adverse to the applicant); Toohey, 415 A.2d at 737 (restating the Court's longstanding holding that lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the effect of a proposed use on property values and traffic conditions have no probative force with respect to an application for a special exception).	2	3
Toohey v. Kildaygreen ri · 1980 · cited in 2 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003Salve Regina , 594 A.2d at 881-82 (holding that the zoning board's denial of the requested special use permit was an abuse of discretion because it did not hear expert testimony or other evidence adverse to the applicant); Toohey , 415 A.2d at 737 (restating the Court's longstanding holding that lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the effect of a proposed use on property values and traffic conditions have no probative force with respect to an application for a special exception). 2002Salve Regina, 594 A.2d at 881-82 (holding that the zoning board's denial of the requested special use permit was an abuse of discretion because it did not hear expert testimony or other evidence adverse to the applicant); Toohey, 415 A.2d at 737 (restating the Court's longstanding holding that lay judgments of neighboring property owners on the effect of a proposed use on property values and traffic conditions have no probative force with respect to an application for a special exception).	2	2
Curran v. Church Community Housing Corp.green ri · 1996 · cited in 2 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 1996–2006 2 sentences 2006See Curran v. Church Cmty. Housing Corp. , 672 A.2d 453 , 454-55 (R.I. 1996). 7 Although the Planning Board and each of its members in his or her official capacity have been named in the Town's complaint and service of such complaint was accepted by Attorney John Gannon, neither the Planning Board nor its members have provided an answer to the Town's complaint or submitted memoranda in support of its position. 8 Mendon has framed its "standing" argument as a motion to dismiss. 1996Curran, et al. v. Church Community Housing Corporation, et al. , 672 A.2d 453 , 455 (R.I. 1996).	1	2
Harte v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen ri · 1952 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Id. at 43, 91 A.2d at 33 . 2008Id. at 43, 91 A.2d at 33 .	1	1
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpered scotus · 1971 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823-24 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 153 (1971), the United States Supreme Court stated that to make a finding of arbitrariness, capriciousness or an abuse of discretion, "the court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment." In the instant case, the Board's decision denying the application for a special exception constituted an abuse of discretion since it was attributed essentially to aesthetic considerations and was not 1994In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823-24 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136, 153 (1971), the United States Supreme Court stated that to make a finding of arbitrariness, capriciousness or an abuse of discretion, "the court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment." In the instant case, the Board's decision denying the application for a special exception constituted an abuse of discretion since it was attributed essentially to aesthetic considerations and was not	1	1
Cugini v. Chiaradiogreen ri · 1963 · cited in 1 Rhode Island opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967 2 sentences 1967See Cugini v. Chiaradio, 96 R.I. 120 , 189 A.2d 798 , which, unlike the case at bar, involved an application for a special exception. 1967See Cugini v. Chiaradio, 96 R.I. 120 , 189 A.2d 798 , which, unlike the case at bar, involved an application for a special exception.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Gilman v. Zoning Board of Review green ri · 1968 2 sentences 1997Warwick , 103 R.I. 612 , 613 (1968). 1993Warwick, 103 R.I. 612 , 613 (1968).	3	1991–1997
Town of Coventry Zoning Board of Review v. Omni Development Corp. green ri · 2003 1 sentence 2005Corp. stated that "the zoning board is vested with the same power and authority as the various local boards, including the city or town council" it was only in relation to "considering an application for a special exception to construct low and moderate income housing." 814 A.2d at 897 .	1	2005–2005
Perron v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW, ETC. green ri · 1977 2 sentences 1994In effect, the Board "administratively vetoed [a] use conditionally authorized and thereby exceeded power conferred upon it by ordinance." Perron, 117 R.I. at 574 , 369 A.2d at 640 . 1994In effect, the Board "administratively vetoed [a] use conditionally authorized and thereby exceeded power conferred upon it by ordinance." Perron, 117 R.I. at 574 , 369 A.2d at 640 .	1	1994–1994
Gilman v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW OF TOWN OF W. WARWICK green ri · 1968 1 sentence 1991Gilman v. Zoning Board of Review, 103 R.I. 612 , 240 A.2d 159 (1968).	1	1991–1991
Day v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW OF CRANSTON green ri · 1961 1 sentence 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 .	1	1968–1968
Marks v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Providence green ri · 1964 2 sentences 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 . 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 .	1	1968–1968
Day v. Zoning Board of Review green ri · 1961 1 sentence 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 .	1	1968–1968
Churchill v. ZONING BD. OF CUMBERLAND green ri · 1964 2 sentences 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 . 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 .	1	1968–1968
Burke v. Zoning Board of Review green ri · 1968 1 sentence 1968Day v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 136 , 167 A.2d 136 ; Churchill v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 302 , 201 A.2d 480 ; Marks v. Zoning Board of Review, 98 R.I. 405 , 203 A.2d 761 ; Burke v. Zoning Board of Review, R.I. 238 A.2d 50 .	1	1968–1968

Where else courts name it

MD 43 (1966–2023) PA 32 (1956–2026) CT 26 (1967–2020) RI 13 (1967–2008) NY 8 (1961–2026) IN 7 (1989–2016) FL 6 (1974–2003) DC 2 (1984–2002) DE 2 (2005–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check