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.
8 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2016 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. Thomas Mercuriogreen2 sentences2016In our judgment, the fact that the testimony of Ms. Dalomba, the only eyewitness, was made more credible by the tainted physical evidence seized from defendant’s apartment makes it quite possible that it could have had an impact on a juror’s decision with respect to Ms. Dalomba’s credibility; a decision of vital significance in this case.13 See Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (holding that error was not harmless where it affected witness credibility and credibility was “central to the case”); Smith, 446 A.2d at 1036 (stating that the “crucial issue” was one of credibility and further stating that 2016In our judgment, the fact that the testimony of Ms. Dalomba, the only eyewitness, was made more credible by the tainted physical evidence seized from defendant’s apartment makes it quite possible that it could have had an impact on a juror’s decision with respect to Ms. Dalomba’s credibility; a decision of vital significance in this case.13 See Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (holding that error was not harmless where it affected witness credibility and credibility was “central to the case”); Smith, 446 A.2d at 1036 (stating that the “crucial issue” was one of credibility and further stating that | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2016In our judgment, the fact that the testimony of Ms. Dalomba, the only eyewitness, was made more credible by the tainted physical evidence seized from defendant’s apartment makes it quite possible that it could have had an impact on a juror’s decision with respect to Ms. Dalomba’s credibility; a decision of vital significance in this case.13 See Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (holding that error was not harmless where it affected witness credibility and credibility was “central to the case”); Smith, 446 A.2d at 1036 (stating that the “crucial issue” was one of credibility and further stating that 2016In our judgment, the fact that the testimony of Ms. Dalomba, the only eyewitness, was made more credible by the tainted physical evidence seized from defendant’s apartment makes it quite possible that it could have had an impact on a juror’s decision with respect to Ms. Dalomba’s credibility; a decision of vital significance in this case.13 See Mercurio, 89 A.3d at 822-23 (holding that error was not harmless where it affected witness credibility and credibility was “central to the case”); Smith, 446 A.2d at 1036 (stating that the “crucial issue” was one of credibility and further stating that | 2 | 2 |
State v. Amazeengreen1 sentence2006See Jimenez, 882 A.2d at 557 (“The defendant’s actions, * * * coupled with his detailed memory of several events that occurred throughout the period in question, contradict his assertion that his will was so paralyzed as to render him incapable of withstanding evil impulses or forming any sane design.”); Amazeen, 526 A.2d at 1273 (stating that “[t]he defendant’s clear memory of the events leading up to the victim’s death” contributed to the holding that an instruction on voluntary manslaughter due to diminished capacity was not warranted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jimenezgreen1 sentence2006See Jimenez, 882 A.2d at 557 (“The defendant’s actions, * * * coupled with his detailed memory of several events that occurred throughout the period in question, contradict his assertion that his will was so paralyzed as to render him incapable of withstanding evil impulses or forming any sane design.”); Amazeen, 526 A.2d at 1273 (stating that “[t]he defendant’s clear memory of the events leading up to the victim’s death” contributed to the holding that an instruction on voluntary manslaughter due to diminished capacity was not warranted). | 1 | 1 |
Bove v. Board of Review of City of Newportgreen2 sentences2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t 2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t | 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 |
|---|---|---|
May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review
neutral
2 sentences2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t 2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t | 2 | 1967–2003 |
Menard v. Zoning Board of Review
green
2 sentences2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t 2003See Bow v. Bd. of Rev. of the City of Newport , 95 R.I. 197 , 185 A.2d 751 (1962) (holding that six participating members rendered the hearing jurisdictionally defective); Menard v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Woonsocket , 83 R.I. 283 , 115 A.2d 533 (1955) (quashing the decision of a three-member board on the grounds that a five-member participating board was a jurisdictional requirement); May-Day Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of the City of Pawtucket , 77 R.I. 469 , 77 A.2d 539 (1950) (holding that the legislature intended to make five participating members available in the event t | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Pari
green
1 sentence1987It is true that in State v. Pari, 430 A.2d 429 , 432 n.2 (R.I. 1981), we approved the holding of a hearing outside the presence of a jury by a trial justice in order to explore the scope of assertion of the privilege. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
R. I. Home Builders, Inc. v. Budlong Rose Co.
green
1 sentence1970Having heretofore held in Rhode Island Home Builders, Inc., supra, that such public notice and hearing are conditions precedent to the local legislature’s jurisdiction to take final action, we conclude that the alterations to the proposed map and ordinance in the instant case, if substantial, were made in excess of the Jamestown Town Council’s jurisdiction. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Blake v. Mason
green
2 sentences1968The Connecticut supreme court in Blake v. Mason, 82 Conn. 324 , 73 A. 782 , stated that the word “ministerial” refers to a duty which is to be performed by an official “ * * in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner * * * without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done.’ ” The advertising and the holding of the required hearing, we believe, came within the definition of ministerial as set forth by the Connecticut court, and mandamus is therefore a proper remedy. *704 It matters little that Beacon.took no appeal to the liquor control admini 1968The Connecticut supreme court in Blake v. Mason, 82 Conn. 324 , 73 A. 782 , stated that the word “ministerial” refers to a duty which is to be performed by an official “ * * in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner * * * without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done.’ ” The advertising and the holding of the required hearing, we believe, came within the definition of ministerial as set forth by the Connecticut court, and mandamus is therefore a proper remedy. *704 It matters little that Beacon.took no appeal to the liquor control admini | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.