7 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Nearygreen1 sentence2017II Standard of Review “In reviewing the Superior Court’s judgment on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we examine the matter de novo and apply the same standards as those used by the trial court.” Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Neary, 785 A.2d 1123, 1126 (R.I. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Burns v. Sundlungreen1 sentence2005Accordingly we hold that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement does not apply in this case and now turn to the merits of plaintiff's lawsuit." Id. at 117. 3 The Block Island based businesses are hereafter referred to as the "Block Island Lessors" or the "Lessors." 4 Section 31-3-3 (e) provides that a bicycle is a two-wheeled vehicle, except scooters and similar devices, "propelled exclusively by human power." 5 The Court has addressed the unlikelihood of Plaintiffs prevailing on the claims set forth in Count I (statutory construction) and Count V (equitable estoppel) of the Ame | 1 | 1 |
Almeida v. Plasters' & Cement Masons' Local 40 Pension Fundgreen1 sentence2001See Almeida v. Plasters' and Cement Masons’ Local 40 Pension Fund, 722 A.2d 257, 259 (R.I.1998) (per curiam) (recognizing that there are exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement, but found the exception not applicable). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Fritz Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010In United States v. Fritz Properties, Inc., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 772 , at page 777 , the court said that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies `is a product of judicial self-limitation resembling the requirement of equity jurisdiction-that a litigant has no standing in equity where he has an adequate remedy at law-although matters of comity and need for orderly administrative procedure helped shape the doctrine .'" See Smith v. Highway Board, 117 Vt. 343 , 91 A.2d 805 . 1966In United States v. Fritz Properties, Inc., 89 F. Supp. 772 , the court said at page 777 that the ¡doctrine of exhaustion of *371 remedies “is a .product of judicial self-limitation resembling the requirement of equity jurisdiction&emdash;that a litigant has no standing in equity where he has an adequate remedy at law&emdash;although matters of comity and need for orderly administrative procedure helped shape the doctrine.” See Smith v. Highway Board, 117 Vt. 343 . | 2 | 1966–2010 |
Smith v. Highway Board
green
2 sentences2010In United States v. Fritz Properties, Inc., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 772 , at page 777 , the court said that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies `is a product of judicial self-limitation resembling the requirement of equity jurisdiction-that a litigant has no standing in equity where he has an adequate remedy at law-although matters of comity and need for orderly administrative procedure helped shape the doctrine .'" See Smith v. Highway Board, 117 Vt. 343 , 91 A.2d 805 . 2010In United States v. Fritz Properties, Inc., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 772 , at page 777 , the court said that the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies `is a product of judicial self-limitation resembling the requirement of equity jurisdiction-that a litigant has no standing in equity where he has an adequate remedy at law-although matters of comity and need for orderly administrative procedure helped shape the doctrine .'" See Smith v. Highway Board, 117 Vt. 343 , 91 A.2d 805 . | 2 | 1966–2010 |
Greenwich Bay Yacht Basin Associates v. Brown
green
1 sentence1998In Greenwich Bay Yacht Basin Associates , we recognized that even if the doctrine of estop-pel might be raised in respect to actions taken by the Coastal Resources Management Council, it was appropriate that the parties seek an administrative declaration of the standards to be utilized and further pointed out that any such declaration by the agency would be reviewed by the Superior Court. 537 A.2d at 993 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nardi v. City of Providence
green
2 sentences1992Id. at 448-49 , 153 A.2d at 142 . 1992Id. at 448-49 , 153 A.2d at 142 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Walter J. Miller v. United States
green
1 sentence1966The court in that case referred to Miller v. United States, 242 F.2d 392 , and to United States v. Kissinger, 250 F.2d 940 , as reflecting the contrary views on this proposition. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
United States v. Henry Kissinger
green
1 sentence1966The court in that case referred to Miller v. United States, 242 F.2d 392 , and to United States v. Kissinger, 250 F.2d 940 , as reflecting the contrary views on this proposition. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
James Weir v. United States
green
1 sentence1966There appears to be considerable confusion in the cases between the applicability of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the undisputed -authority of the legislature to confer exclusive jurisdiction on an agency acting quasi-judicially or on a judicial tribunal to hear and determine appeals from the action of an administrative agency. *372 That there is a conflict of authority as to whether a litigant can raise a question of constitutionality in a judicial tribunal in situations where he failed to resort to prescribed administrative procedures is expressly recognized in W | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.