fair and impartial hearing in Rhode Island

1999Although a party may not be deprived of a fair and impartial hearing before a zoning board of review, it is well-settled that "zoning boards of review are not required to observe strictly rules of evidence. . . ." Tuite v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the City of Woonsocket , 96 R.I. 307 , 191 A.2d 155 (1963) (citing Lumb v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 91 R.I. 498 , 165 A.2d 504 (1960).

1999Although a party may not be deprived of a fair and impartial hearing before a zoning board of review, it is well-settled that "zoning boards of review are not required to observe strictly rules of evidence. . . ." Tuite v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the City of Woonsocket , 96 R.I. 307 , 191 A.2d 155 (1963) (citing Lumb v. Zoning Bd. of Review , 91 R.I. 498 , 165 A.2d 504 (1960).

2021See Town Houses at Bonnet Shores Condominium Association v. Langlois, 45 A.3d 577, 584 (R.I. 2012) (“The defendant raises additional issues on appeal that we deem meritless because they were not sufficiently developed in his written submissions to this Court.”); State v. Chase, 9 A.3d 1248, 1256 (R.I. 2010) (“[S]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”) (quoting Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Co

2021This Court has long recognized that “the admissibility of evidence * * * is confided to the sound discretion of the trial justice; moreover, this Court will not interfere with the trial justice’s decision unless a clear abuse of that discretion is apparent.” Souza, 221 A.3d at 377 (quoting Giammarco v. Giammarco, 959 A.2d 531, 533 (R.I. 2008)).

2021See Town Houses at Bonnet Shores Condominium Association v. Langlois, 45 A.3d 577, 584 (R.I. 2012) (“The defendant raises additional issues on appeal that we deem meritless because they were not sufficiently developed in his written submissions to this Court.”); State v. Chase, 9 A.3d 1248, 1256 (R.I. 2010) (“[S]imply stating an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”) (quoting Wilkinson v. State Crime Laboratory Co

2014Put somewhat differently, “[u]nless there is evidence that preformed opinions of board members are fixed and unchangeable, or that in the deliberations after hearing all the evidence, the result was dictated by such a preformed opinion, the [employee] cannot successfully maintain that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing.” Kizer v. Dorchester County Vocational Education Board of Trustees, 287 S.C. 545 , 340 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1986); accord Hubbard v. Board of Education, 19 Kan.

2014Put somewhat differently, “[u]nless there is evidence that preformed opinions of board members are fixed and unchangeable, or that in the deliberations after hearing all the evidence, the result was dictated by such a preformed opinion, the [employee] cannot successfully maintain that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing.” Kizer v. Dorchester County Vocational Education Board of Trustees, 287 S.C. 545 , 340 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1986); accord Hubbard v. Board of Education, 19 Kan.

2014App.2d 853 , 882 P.2d 483, 487-88 (1994); Palmer v. Van Buren R-1 Board of Education, 872 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo.Ct.App. 1994) (“The critical inquiry is whether a review of the record ‘indicates that the board of education’s prior knowledge * * * resulted in an irrevocable commitment on its part to terminate [the teacher], regardless of what the evidence at the hearing, pro or con, might reveal * * *.’ ”) (quoting Cochran v. Board of Education of Mexico School District No. 59, 815 S.W.2d 55, 63 (Mo.Ct.App.1991)).

2014App.2d 853 , 882 P.2d 483, 487-88 (1994); Palmer v. Van Buren R-1 Board of Education, 872 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo.Ct.App. 1994) (“The critical inquiry is whether a review of the record ‘indicates that the board of education’s prior knowledge * * * resulted in an irrevocable commitment on its part to terminate [the teacher], regardless of what the evidence at the hearing, pro or con, might reveal * * *.’ ”) (quoting Cochran v. Board of Education of Mexico School District No. 59, 815 S.W.2d 55, 63 (Mo.Ct.App.1991)).

2014Put somewhat differently, “[u]nless there is evidence that preformed opinions of board members are fixed and unchangeable, or that in the deliberations after hearing all the evidence, the result was dictated by such a preformed opinion, the [employee] cannot successfully maintain that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing.” Kizer v. Dorchester County Vocational Education Board of Trustees, 287 S.C. 545 , 340 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1986); accord Hubbard v. Board of Education, 19 Kan.

2014App.2d 853 , 882 P.2d 483, 487-88 (1994); Palmer v. Van Buren R-1 Board of Education, 872 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Mo.Ct.App. 1994) (“The critical inquiry is whether a review of the record ‘indicates that the board of education’s prior knowledge * * * resulted in an irrevocable commitment on its part to terminate [the teacher], regardless of what the evidence at the hearing, pro or con, might reveal * * *.’ ”) (quoting Cochran v. Board of Education of Mexico School District No. 59, 815 S.W.2d 55, 63 (Mo.Ct.App.1991)).

2011See Champlin's Realty Assocs. v. Tikoian , 989 A.2d 427 , 443 (R.I. 2010); see also Davis v. Wood , 444 A.2d 190 , 192 (R.I. 1982) ("[T]he Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a person shall not be tried before an administrative tribunal that is biased or otherwise indisposed from rendering a fair and impartial decision [. . .].").

2011See Champlin's Realty Assocs. v. Tikoian , 989 A.2d 427 , 443 (R.I. 2010); see also Davis v. Wood , 444 A.2d 190 , 192 (R.I. 1982) ("[T]he Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a person shall not be tried before an administrative tribunal that is biased or otherwise indisposed from rendering a fair and impartial decision [. . .].").