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.
7 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Castelli v. Carcierigreen2 sentences2016However, once the board determines that the evidence shows that the applicant is disabled, then the board “shall retire the said member.” “We have held that the use of the word ‘shall’ contemplate something mandatory or the ‘imposition of a duty.’ ” Castelli v. Carcieri, 961 A.2d 277, 284 (R.I.2008). 2016However, once the board determines that the evidence shows that the applicant is disabled, then the board “shall retire the said member.” “We have held that the use of the word ‘shall’ contemplates something mandatory or the ‘imposition of a duty.’” Castelli v. Carcieri, - 13 - 961 A.2d 277, 284 (R.I. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Edwin I. Hatch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissiongreen2 sentences1998"An agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from tolerably terse to intolerably mute." Id. ( citing Greater Boston Television Corp., v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841 , 852 (D.C. 1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A | 1 | 3 |
cluster 297545green2 sentences2008"An agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute." Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission , 444 F.2d 841 , 852 (D.C. 1998"An agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from tolerably terse to intolerably mute." Id. ( citing Greater Boston Television Corp., v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841 , 852 (D.C. | 1 | 3 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Tradegreen2 sentences1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A 1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gregory v. Tarr
green
2 sentences2008Cir. 1970), cert. denied , 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S. Ct. 2229 (1971); see also Hatch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , 654 F.2d 825 , 834 (D.C. 1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A | 3 | 1982–2008 |
WHDH, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
green
2 sentences2008Cir. 1970), cert. denied , 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S. Ct. 2229 (1971); see also Hatch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , 654 F.2d 825 , 834 (D.C. 1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A | 3 | 1982–2008 |
Michael Morse v. Employees Retirement System of the City of Providence
green
2 sentences2019We then stated that "[t]he board certainly has the ability to determine that the one dissenting physician is more persuasive than the others, but that decision must be based on a reasoned analysis of the evidence before the board." Id. 2019We cautioned, however, that such a conclusion "must be based on a reasoned analysis of the evidence before the board." Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Ohio Fast Freight, Inc. v. United States
green
1 sentence1982As aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C.Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 403 U.S. 923 , 91 S.Ct. 2229 , 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971): “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.” (Footnotes omitted.) A | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.