Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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.
11 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2013 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. Godettegreen2 sentences2010See State v. Brown , 915 A.2d 1279 , 1282 (R.I. 2007) (recognizing that "[t]he issue . . . is not the probationer's guilt with respect to the new charges, but rather whether the probationer's `conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status'") (quoting State v. Godette , 751 A.2d 742 , 745 (R.I. 2000)); see also State v. Gautier , 774 A.2d 882 , 887 (R.I. 2001) ("It is not the role of the hearing justice to determine the validity of the specific charge that formed the basis of the violation."). 2005See State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003) (“Keeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation.”); see also State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (“[T]he sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated.”); State v. Godette, 751 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I.2000) (indicating that the appropriate role of the hearing justice at a probation-violation hearing is “to determine only 'whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been l | 3 | 5 |
State v. Gautiergreen2 sentences2013“It is not the role of the hearing justice to determine the validity of the specific charge that *609 formed the basis of the violation.” State v. Gautier, 774 A.2d 882, 887 (R.I.2001). 2010See State v. Brown , 915 A.2d 1279 , 1282 (R.I. 2007) (recognizing that "[t]he issue . . . is not the probationer's guilt with respect to the new charges, but rather whether the probationer's `conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status'") (quoting State v. Godette , 751 A.2d 742 , 745 (R.I. 2000)); see also State v. Gautier , 774 A.2d 882 , 887 (R.I. 2001) ("It is not the role of the hearing justice to determine the validity of the specific charge that formed the basis of the violation."). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Znoskogreen2 sentences2005Reiterating our established rule that “the appropriate role of the hearing justice [in a probation-revocation hearing is] to determine ‘only whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status[,]’ ” Gautier I, 774 A.2d at 886 -87 (quoting State v. Znosko, 755 A.2d 832, 834-35 (R.I.2000)), and not “to determine the validity of the specific charge that formed the basis of the violation[,]” id., we held that the hearing justice had “misconceived his role” at t 2005Reiterating our established rule that “the appropriate role of the hearing justice [in a probation-revocation hearing is] to determine ‘only whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status[,]’ ” Gautier I, 774 A.2d at 886 -87 (quoting State v. Znosko, 755 A.2d 832, 834-35 (R.I.2000)), and not “to determine the validity of the specific charge that formed the basis of the violation[,]” id., we held that the hearing justice had “misconceived his role” at t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bourdeaugreen2 sentences2000Rather, we held that the appropriate role of the hearing justice was to determine “only whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status.” *835 Id. at 745 (citing Bourdeau, 448 A.2d at 1249 ). 1997State v. Bourdeau, 448 A.2d 1247, 1249 (R.I.1982). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Simpsongreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v. Fortes, 922 A.2d *1213 143, 150 (R.I.2007) (request for cautionary instructions or motion for a mistrial would not have been futile because the trial justice did not overrule the defendant's objection); State v. Simpson, 658 A.2d 522, 528 (R.I.1995) (request for cautionary instructions would have been futile in view of the fact that a trial justice had overruled defense counsel’s objection); State v. Mead, 544 A.2d 1146, 1150 (R.I.1988) (trial justice twice summarily overruled the defendant’s objections, thus “there would have been little point in requesting a cautionary in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Meadgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v. Fortes, 922 A.2d *1213 143, 150 (R.I.2007) (request for cautionary instructions or motion for a mistrial would not have been futile because the trial justice did not overrule the defendant's objection); State v. Simpson, 658 A.2d 522, 528 (R.I.1995) (request for cautionary instructions would have been futile in view of the fact that a trial justice had overruled defense counsel’s objection); State v. Mead, 544 A.2d 1146, 1150 (R.I.1988) (trial justice twice summarily overruled the defendant’s objections, thus “there would have been little point in requesting a cautionary in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2010See State v. Brown , 915 A.2d 1279 , 1282 (R.I. 2007) (recognizing that "[t]he issue . . . is not the probationer's guilt with respect to the new charges, but rather whether the probationer's `conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the required good behavior expected and required by his probationary status'") (quoting State v. Godette , 751 A.2d 742 , 745 (R.I. 2000)); see also State v. Gautier , 774 A.2d 882 , 887 (R.I. 2001) ("It is not the role of the hearing justice to determine the validity of the specific charge that formed the basis of the violation."). | 1 | 1 |
Northern Trust Co. v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF WESTERLYgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 942 A.2d 284 , 294 n. 19, 2007 WL 4335539 (R.I.2007) (describing the long pendency of that case as regrettable and expressly encouraging “the parties and their attorneys to make every effort to dispose of the remaining bone of contention at this time by engaging in meaningful settlement negotiations”); Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Review of Westerly, 899 A.2d 517, 520 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (“[W]e are keenly aware of the judiciary’s obligation to see to it that litigation be not unduly or improperly prolonged.”). | 1 | 1 |
Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smileygreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 942 A.2d 284 , 294 n. 19, 2007 WL 4335539 (R.I.2007) (describing the long pendency of that case as regrettable and expressly encouraging “the parties and their attorneys to make every effort to dispose of the remaining bone of contention at this time by engaging in meaningful settlement negotiations”); Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Review of Westerly, 899 A.2d 517, 520 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (“[W]e are keenly aware of the judiciary’s obligation to see to it that litigation be not unduly or improperly prolonged.”). 2008See, e.g., Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley, 942 A.2d 284 , 294 n. 19, 2007 WL 4335539 (R.I.2007) (describing the long pendency of that case as regrettable and expressly encouraging “the parties and their attorneys to make every effort to dispose of the remaining bone of contention at this time by engaging in meaningful settlement negotiations”); Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Review of Westerly, 899 A.2d 517, 520 (R.I.2006) (mem.) (“[W]e are keenly aware of the judiciary’s obligation to see to it that litigation be not unduly or improperly prolonged.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waitegreen2 sentences2005See State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003) (“Keeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation.”); see also State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (“[T]he sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated.”); State v. Godette, 751 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I.2000) (indicating that the appropriate role of the hearing justice at a probation-violation hearing is “to determine only 'whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been l 2005See State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003) (“Keeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation.”); see also State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (“[T]he sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated.”); State v. Godette, 751 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I.2000) (indicating that the appropriate role of the hearing justice at a probation-violation hearing is “to determine only 'whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been l | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sylviagreen2 sentences2005See State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003) (“Keeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation.”); see also State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (“[T]he sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated.”); State v. Godette, 751 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I.2000) (indicating that the appropriate role of the hearing justice at a probation-violation hearing is “to determine only 'whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been l 2005See State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003) (“Keeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation.”); see also State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (“[T]he sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated.”); State v. Godette, 751 A.2d 742, 745 (R.I.2000) (indicating that the appropriate role of the hearing justice at a probation-violation hearing is “to determine only 'whether in [the hearing justice’s] discretion [the defendant’s] conduct on the day in question had been l | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinneygreen1 sentence2001See id. at 834 ; see also Godette, 751 A.2d at 745 ; State v. Hie, 688 A.2d 283, 284 (R.I.1996); State v. Pinney, 672 A.2d 870, 871 (R.I.1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hiegreen1 sentence2001See id. at 834 ; see also Godette, 751 A.2d at 745 ; State v. Hie, 688 A.2d 283, 284 (R.I.1996); State v. Pinney, 672 A.2d 870, 871 (R.I.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Saltzman v. Atlantic Realty Co., Inc.green2 sentences1996Saltzman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 434 A.2d 1343, 1345 (1981). 1996Saltzman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 434 A.2d 1343, 1345 (1981). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Iggy's Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux
green
1 sentence2008Iggy's Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux , 729 A.2d 701 , 705 (R.I. 1999). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Chase
green
1 sentence2005In addition, considering our holdings that have redefined and clarified the role of a hearing justice sitting in a probation-revocation proceeding, we expressly overrule and abrogate our 1991 decision in State v. Chase, 588 A.2d 120 (R.I.1991), insofar as it is inconsistent with the principles enunciated in this opinion. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.