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 1983–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vinagrogreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Aptt v. City of Warwick Building Department, 463 A.2d 1377, 1378 (R.I.1983) (stating that the sole issue before the Court was “whether or not [the] defendant, who ha[d] been convicted of a zoning violation, ha[d] a right to a de novo trial by jury in the Superior Court”); State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945, 945-46 (R.I.1981) (stating that one of the defendant’s arguments on appeal was that the statute authorizing direct review of the District Court’s judgment by way of certiorari, in the context of an animal cruelty charge, violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial). 2012It is well established that “a jury trial is required for those defendants who have been convicted of a violation that is ‘criminal in nature.’ ” Aptt, 463 A.2d at 1378 (quoting Vinagro, 433 A.2d at 949 ). | 1 | 2 |
Aptt v. City of Warwick Building Departmentgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Aptt v. City of Warwick Building Department, 463 A.2d 1377, 1378 (R.I.1983) (stating that the sole issue before the Court was “whether or not [the] defendant, who ha[d] been convicted of a zoning violation, ha[d] a right to a de novo trial by jury in the Superior Court”); State v. Vinagro, 433 A.2d 945, 945-46 (R.I.1981) (stating that one of the defendant’s arguments on appeal was that the statute authorizing direct review of the District Court’s judgment by way of certiorari, in the context of an animal cruelty charge, violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial). 2012In Aptt, 463 A.2d at 1379 , we concluded that the zoning violation at issue was “not commensurate with a finding of ‘criminal in nature’ for purposes of determining whether or not a jury trial is warranted.” We distinguished the zoning violation at issue in Aptt from the animal cruelty conviction that had been at issue in the earlier Vinagro case. | 1 | 1 |
Primiano v. Town Council of Town of Warrengreen2 sentences2010Id. at 450, 347 A.2d at 415 -16 . 2010Id. at 450, 347 A.2d at 415 -16 . | 1 | 1 |
Zeilstra v. Barrington Zoning Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2008See Zeilstra v. Barrington Zoning Bd. Of Review , 417 A.2d 303 (R.I. 1980). *Page 1 | 1 | 1 |
Clift v. Narragansett Television L.P.green1 sentence1998The defendant may not be held liable “when he has done no more than insist on his legal rights in a permissible way, even though such insistence is likely or even certain to annoy, disturb, or inconvenience [plaintiff] or even cause [plaintiff] to suffer some emotional distress.” Champlin, 478 A.2d at 989 ; see also Clift, 688 A.2d at 813 ; Restatement (Second) Torts, § 46 cmt. g, at 76. | 1 | 1 |
Marteg Corp. v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC.green1 sentence1998P. 80(b) ("[a] copy of the complaint shall be served . . . upon all other parties to the proceeding to be reviewed"); see also Marteg Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review, 425 A.2d 1240 , 1242 (R.I. 1981); Caran v. Freda, 108 R.I. 748 , 752, 279 A.2d 405 , 408 (R.I. 1971) ("In order to benefit from the rule, we deem it necessary that the record of the zoning board show that the individuals who appeared at the zoning hearing are there as adversaries of the appellants"). | 1 | 1 |
Caran v. Fredagreen2 sentences1998P. 80(b) ("[a] copy of the complaint shall be served . . . upon all other parties to the proceeding to be reviewed"); see also Marteg Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review, 425 A.2d 1240 , 1242 (R.I. 1981); Caran v. Freda, 108 R.I. 748 , 752, 279 A.2d 405 , 408 (R.I. 1971) ("In order to benefit from the rule, we deem it necessary that the record of the zoning board show that the individuals who appeared at the zoning hearing are there as adversaries of the appellants"). 1998P. 80(b) ("[a] copy of the complaint shall be served . . . upon all other parties to the proceeding to be reviewed"); see also Marteg Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review, 425 A.2d 1240 , 1242 (R.I. 1981); Caran v. Freda, 108 R.I. 748 , 752, 279 A.2d 405 , 408 (R.I. 1971) ("In order to benefit from the rule, we deem it necessary that the record of the zoning board show that the individuals who appeared at the zoning hearing are there as adversaries of the appellants"). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tuite v. Zoning Board of Review of Woonsocket
green
2 sentences2009Tuite , 95 R.I, at 14 , 182 A.2d at 313 . 1991Tuite v. Zoning Board of Review of Woonsocket, 95 R.I. 12 , 182 A.2d 313 (1962). | 2 | 1991–2009 |
Amico's Inc. v. Mattos
green
1 sentence2010It is true that "public health concerns must support the regulation of liquor and victualing establishments." Amico's Inc. v. Mattos , 789 A.2d 899 , 905 (R.I. 2002). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Toohey v. Kilday
green
1 sentence2008First, Appellant argues that the Planning Board's Advisory opinion raises some doubt as to whether the Applicant's request would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and with the comprehensive plan. *Page 11 Additionally, Appellant contends that under Toohey v. Kilday , 415 A.2d 732 , 737 (R.I. 1980), a lay witness at a zoning hearing cannot testify to whether a proposed dwelling would conform with the general character of the surrounding area. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dresser v. A. T. & G., Inc.
green
2 sentences2006These representations do not appear to be in dispute. 10 See also Lombardi v. Kooloian, 560 A.2d 951 , 952 (R.I. 1989) (citing Coderre, 103 R.I. at 578 , 239 A.2d at 730 -31 , with approval); Dresser v. A.T.G., Inc., 118 R.I. 66 , 67-68 , 372 A.2d 67 , 68 (1977) (invalidating a zoning decision in part because "[s]everal of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.). 11 Upon any further review, should the parties not be able to agree otherwise, this Court will determine whether 2006These representations do not appear to be in dispute. 10 See also Lombardi v. Kooloian, 560 A.2d 951 , 952 (R.I. 1989) (citing Coderre, 103 R.I. at 578 , 239 A.2d at 730 -31 , with approval); Dresser v. A.T.G., Inc., 118 R.I. 66 , 67-68 , 372 A.2d 67 , 68 (1977) (invalidating a zoning decision in part because "[s]everal of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.). 11 Upon any further review, should the parties not be able to agree otherwise, this Court will determine whether | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Coderre v. ZONING BD. OF PAWTUCKET
green
2 sentences2006These representations do not appear to be in dispute. 10 See also Lombardi v. Kooloian, 560 A.2d 951 , 952 (R.I. 1989) (citing Coderre, 103 R.I. at 578 , 239 A.2d at 730 -31 , with approval); Dresser v. A.T.G., Inc., 118 R.I. 66 , 67-68 , 372 A.2d 67 , 68 (1977) (invalidating a zoning decision in part because "[s]everal of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.). 11 Upon any further review, should the parties not be able to agree otherwise, this Court will determine whether 2006These representations do not appear to be in dispute. 10 See also Lombardi v. Kooloian, 560 A.2d 951 , 952 (R.I. 1989) (citing Coderre, 103 R.I. at 578 , 239 A.2d at 730 -31 , with approval); Dresser v. A.T.G., Inc., 118 R.I. 66 , 67-68 , 372 A.2d 67 , 68 (1977) (invalidating a zoning decision in part because "[s]everal of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.). 11 Upon any further review, should the parties not be able to agree otherwise, this Court will determine whether | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lombardi v. Kooloian
green
1 sentence2006These representations do not appear to be in dispute. 10 See also Lombardi v. Kooloian, 560 A.2d 951 , 952 (R.I. 1989) (citing Coderre, 103 R.I. at 578 , 239 A.2d at 730 -31 , with approval); Dresser v. A.T.G., Inc., 118 R.I. 66 , 67-68 , 372 A.2d 67 , 68 (1977) (invalidating a zoning decision in part because "[s]everal of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.). 11 Upon any further review, should the parties not be able to agree otherwise, this Court will determine whether | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mendonsa v. Corey
green
1 sentence2002Mendonsa v. Corey, 495 A.2d 257 , 260 (R.I. 1985) Review of the Zoning Board's Decision Plaintiff raises a number of arguments on appeal, including that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the Batons' appeal; that the Batons' appeal was untimely; that the weight of the record evidence indicates that Plaintiff's use of the subject premises is an accessory use; that the parking and storage of trucks and equipment on the subject premises constitutes a lawful preexisting nonconforming use; that the Board lacked the authority to enforce the zoning ordinance by ordering the abatement of an a | 1 | 2002–2002 |
H.E. Sargent, Inc. v. Town of Wells
green
1 sentence1999Sargent, Inc. , 676 A.2d 920 , 925 (Me. 1996) (citing Town of Falmouth v. Long , 578 A.2d 1168 , 1170 (Me. 1990). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Town of Falmouth v. Long
green
1 sentence1999Sargent, Inc. , 676 A.2d 920 , 925 (Me. 1996) (citing Town of Falmouth v. Long , 578 A.2d 1168 , 1170 (Me. 1990). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Champlin v. Washington Trust Co., of Westerly
green
1 sentence1998The defendant may not be held liable “when he has done no more than insist on his legal rights in a permissible way, even though such insistence is likely or even certain to annoy, disturb, or inconvenience [plaintiff] or even cause [plaintiff] to suffer some emotional distress.” Champlin, 478 A.2d at 989 ; see also Clift, 688 A.2d at 813 ; Restatement (Second) Torts, § 46 cmt. g, at 76. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence
green
2 sentences1991The Viti Doctrine is the zoning principle enunciated in Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence, 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960). 1991The Viti Doctrine is the zoning principle enunciated in Viti v. Zoning Board of Review of Providence, 92 R.I. 59 , 166 A.2d 211 (1960). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Town of Glocester v. Tillinghast
green
1 sentence1983The defendant contends that this court decided in Town of Glocester v. Tillinghast, R.I., 416 A.2d 1178 (1980), that a zoning-ordinance violation is “criminal, in nature.” He further reasons that since it is criminal in nature, a right to a de novo jury trial exists under Vinagro . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.