9 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Toohey v. Kildaygreen2 sentences2011In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its locations on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield , 401 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). 2010When seeking a special use permit — to satisfy the prescribed standard — the rule is that "the applicant [must] show . . . that `neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.'" Toohey , 415 A.2d at 736 (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 637 , 642 (1971)). | 2 | 6 |
Hester v. Timothygreen2 sentences2011In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its locations on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield , 401 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). 2010When seeking a special use permit — to satisfy the prescribed standard — the rule is that "the applicant [must] show . . . that `neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals.'" Toohey , 415 A.2d at 736 (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 637 , 642 (1971)). | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Smithfield
green
2 sentences2011In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its locations on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield , 401 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). 2006As a condition precedent, the applicant must establish that the relief sought is "reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public." Id. at 737 In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy, 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Smithfield, 104 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). | 3 | 2006–2011 |
Allen N. Lashner, Inc. v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2011In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its locations on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy , 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Board of Review of Smithfield , 401 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). 2006As a condition precedent, the applicant must establish that the relief sought is "reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public." Id. at 737 In order to satisfy the prescribed standard, the applicant must only show that "neither the proposed use nor its location on the site would have a detrimental effect upon public health, safety, welfare and morals." Id. (quoting Hester v. Timothy, 108 R.I. 376 , 385-86 , 275 A.2d 403 , 406 (1971)); Nani v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Smithfield, 104 R.I. 150 , 242 A.2d 403 (1958). | 3 | 2006–2011 |
Came v. Brigham
neutral
1 sentence1898As it is necessary for corporations to know who are the stockholders, authority to pass a by-law to this end cannot be doubted. *13 In Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35 , a by-law provided how the promissory notes of the corporation should be given. | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.