12 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ouimette v. Stategreen2 sentences2025This Court has further stated that “questions of fact concerning whether a defendant’s constitutional rights have been -6- infringed, and mixed questions of law and fact with constitutional implications, are reviewed de novo.” Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I. 2001). 2008Standard of Review "In the absence of clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence, the findings of a trial justice on post-conviction relief will not be disturbed." Ouimette v. State , 785 A.2d 1132 , 1135 (R.I. 2001). | 2 | 3 |
Beagen v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Standard of Review “The determination of a hearing justice in an application for post-conviction relief will remain undisturbed on appeal unless there is clear error, or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Brennan v. Vose, 764 A.2d 168, 174 (R.I.2001) (citing Beagen v. State, 705 A.2d 173, 176 (R.I.1998)). 2001Beagen v. State, 705 A.2d 173, 176 (R.I.1998). | 2 | 2 |
Brennan v. Vosegreen2 sentences2001Standard of Review “The determination of a hearing justice in an application for post-conviction relief will remain undisturbed on appeal unless there is clear error, or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Brennan v. Vose, 764 A.2d 168, 174 (R.I.2001) (citing Beagen v. State, 705 A.2d 173, 176 (R.I.1998)). 2001Brennan v. Vose, 764 A.2d 168, 174 (R.I.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Yara CHUM v. STATE of Rhode Islandgreen1 sentence2020“When we review an application for postconviction relief, ‘this Court will not impinge upon the fact-finding function of a hearing justice absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.’” Chum v. State, 160 A.3d 295, 298 (R.I. 2017) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677, 682 (R.I. 2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Tempest v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“We review de novo ‘questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an alleged violation of an applicant’s constitutional rights.’” Id. at 298-99 (deletion omitted) (quoting Tempest, 141 A.3d at 682 ). 2020“When we review an application for postconviction relief, ‘this Court will not impinge upon the fact-finding function of a hearing justice absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in arriving at those findings.’” Chum v. State, 160 A.3d 295, 298 (R.I. 2017) (brackets and deletion omitted) (quoting Tempest v. State, 141 A.3d 677, 682 (R.I. 2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Carillo v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Ouimette v. State, 785 A.2d 1132, 1135 (R.I.2001); Carillo v. State, 773 A.2d 248, 252 (R.I.2001). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mattatall v. State
green
2 sentences2025When “reviewing a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, this Court will not disturb the findings of the hearing justice absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2025When “reviewing a hearing justice’s determination with respect to an application for postconviction relief, this Court will not disturb findings of the hearing justice absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. D'ALO
green
1 sentence2008State v. Moran , 534 A.2d 180 (R.I. 1987); State v. D'Alo , 477 A.2d 89 (R.I. 1984); State v. Dufresne , 436 A.2d 720 (R.I. 1981). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Dufresne
green
1 sentence2008State v. Moran , 534 A.2d 180 (R.I. 1987); State v. D'Alo , 477 A.2d 89 (R.I. 1984); State v. Dufresne , 436 A.2d 720 (R.I. 1981). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Brown v. Moran
green
1 sentence2008State v. Moran , 534 A.2d 180 (R.I. 1987); State v. D'Alo , 477 A.2d 89 (R.I. 1984); State v. Dufresne , 436 A.2d 720 (R.I. 1981). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gonder v. State
green
2 sentences2008When reviewing a decision granting or denying posteonviction relief, we refrain from disturbing a hearing justice’s factual findings “absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.” Id. (citing Gonder, 935 A.2d at 85 ). 2008When reviewing a decision granting or denying posteonviction relief, we refrain from disturbing a hearing justice’s factual findings “absent clear error or a showing that the hearing justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.” Id. (citing Gonder, 935 A.2d at 85 ). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hester v. Timothy
green
2 sentences1973As this court said in Hester v. Timothy, supra at 385-86 , 275 A.2d at 641 -42: “* * * the grant of a special exception is preconditioned upon a showing that the exception sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public and to satisfy such a standard an *260 applicant is required to show by competent evidence that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.” The failure of the board to admit evidence of the effect of the proposed development on the Newport sewer system and the 1973As this court said in Hester v. Timothy, supra at 385-86 , 275 A.2d at 641 -42: “* * * the grant of a special exception is preconditioned upon a showing that the exception sought is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public and to satisfy such a standard an *260 applicant is required to show by competent evidence that neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.” The failure of the board to admit evidence of the effect of the proposed development on the Newport sewer system and the | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Monforte v. Zoning Bd. of Review of East Providence
green
1 sentence1963I. 447, 176 A.2d 726 , and would not adversely affect the appropriate uses of neighboring properties. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.