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.
13 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
DiDonato v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Johnstongreen2 sentences2011Directly on point is DiDonato v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Johnston , 104 RI 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (1968). 2008Id. at 420. | 2 | 3 |
Bernuth v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2009See Hugas Corp. v. Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 770 (R.I. 1983) ("trial justice erred in upholding the board's utilization of the variance standard and in not remanding the case for reconsideration under the special-exception standard"); see also Von Bernuth , 770 A.2d at 402 (trial justice erred in upholding zoning board's decision where the decision included no discussion of the hardship or reasonable alternative factors under § 42-24-41(d)(2) and where "there is no evidence that the zoning board considered or applied the statutory requirement, given that the statute is not acknowledged in the zo 2007The case at bar is distinguished from von Bernuth v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 770 A.2d 396 , 402 (R.I. 2001), which Appellant cites for the contention that the court cannot affirm a zoning board's decision where the court "[could not] determine what evidence that was presented to the zoning board persuaded it that the requirement of § 42-24-41(d)(2) [the mere inconvenience standard] had been met." Here, it is apparent that the difference between the square footage requirement and Appellant's a lot size — 1600 square feet — would create more than a mere inconvenience if the Applicant's petition w | 1 | 2 |
Felicio v. Fleurygreen2 sentences1999Id. ("the fact that land located within a residential zone could not be used for a dwelling if setback requirements were enforced has been held to satisfy more than a mere inconvenience standard") (citing Gara Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of S. Kingstown , 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987)). 1991Felicio, 557 A.2d at 482 ; Gara Realty, Inc., 523 A.2d at 858 . | 1 | 2 |
Hugas Corp. v. Veadergreen1 sentence2009See Hugas Corp. v. Veader , 456 A.2d 765 , 770 (R.I. 1983) ("trial justice erred in upholding the board's utilization of the variance standard and in not remanding the case for reconsideration under the special-exception standard"); see also Von Bernuth , 770 A.2d at 402 (trial justice erred in upholding zoning board's decision where the decision included no discussion of the hardship or reasonable alternative factors under § 42-24-41(d)(2) and where "there is no evidence that the zoning board considered or applied the statutory requirement, given that the statute is not acknowledged in the zo | 1 | 1 |
Lischio v. Zoning Board of Review of North Kingstowngreen1 sentence2007Appellants have produced evidence that their application for dimensional relief from Ordinance § 4.4(c)(8) "far exceed[s] the more than a mere inconvenience standard of proof because without dimensional relief [Appellants] would be left with no other reasonable alternative to enjoy any legally permitted beneficial use of their property." Lischio , 818 A.2d at 293 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Destefano v. Zoning Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2004See DeStefano v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick, 122 R.I. at 246 , 405 at 1170; Gara Realty, Inc., supra. ANALYSIS I. | 1 | 1 |
Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of Providencegreen2 sentences1997See Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960). 6 A review of the record indicates that the Board did not apply the Viti standard to the variance application now at issue. 1997See Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Providence , 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960). 6 A review of the record indicates that the Board did not apply the Viti standard to the variance application now at issue. | 1 | 1 |
Gartsu v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Woonsocketgreen1 sentence1996Gartsu v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. at 720-21, 248 A.2d at 598. | 1 | 1 |
Brum v. Conleygreen1 sentence1993See also, Brum v. Conley, supra, at p. 1336. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gara Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1999Id. ("the fact that land located within a residential zone could not be used for a dwelling if setback requirements were enforced has been held to satisfy more than a mere inconvenience standard") (citing Gara Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of S. Kingstown , 523 A.2d 855 , 858 (R.I. 1987)). 1991Felicio, 557 A.2d at 482 ; Gara Realty, Inc., 523 A.2d at 858 . | 3 | 1989–1999 |
Travers v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Bristol
green
2 sentences2004Though neither of these opinions uses the language "objectively unreasonable," they do exemplify the principal stated in Travers that the mere inconvenience test "must be applied reasonably and realistically." Travers, 101 R.I. at 514 , 225 A.2d at 224 . 2004Though neither of these opinions uses the language "objectively unreasonable," they do exemplify the principal stated in Travers that the mere inconvenience test "must be applied reasonably and realistically." Travers, 101 R.I. at 514 , 225 A.2d at 224 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). 1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Apostolou v. Genovesi
green
2 sentences1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). 1991See, e.g., DiDonato, 104 R.I. 158 , 242 A.2d 416 (applicant sought a variance to construct a larger home due to increase in family size); Apostolou, 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (mere economic impracticality was mere inconvenience thus insufficient to satisfy Viti standard); Lincoln Plastic Products Co. v. Zoning Board of Review, 104 R.I. 111 , 242 A.2d 301 (1968) (denying relief where applicants merely established their personal preference for the proposed structure). | 1 | 1991–1991 |