6 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cullen v. Town Council of the Lincolngreen2 sentences2026Cullen, 850 A.2d at 906 . 2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 2 |
Howard H. Gilbert, Jr. v. City of Cambridgegreen2 sentences2006In Cullen I we stated as follows: “ ‘[T]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception.’ ” Id. at 906 (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 61 (1st Cir.1991)). 2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hortongreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Remy, 910 A.2d at 800 ; State v. Horton, 871 A.2d 959, 965 (R.I.2005). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Remygreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Remy, 910 A.2d at 800 ; State v. Horton, 871 A.2d 959, 965 (R.I.2005). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Lost Tree Village Corp. v. City of Vero Beachgreen1 sentence2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 1 |
Herrington v. County of Sonomagreen1 sentence2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 1 |
County of Alameda v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 1 |
County of Sonoma v. Herringtongreen1 sentence2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 1 |
Colonial Savings Ass'n v. Commissionergreen1 sentence2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 1 | 1 |
Crist v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Cullen I, 850 A.2d at 906 (quoting Gilbert, 932 F.2d at 61 ) (“ ‘[t]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception’ ”); see also Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 834 F.2d 1488 , 1495 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1090 , 109 S.Ct. 1557 , 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989) (“a property owner cannot rely on the futility exception until at least one meaningful application has been made”); County of Alameda v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App.4th 558 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
M.B.T. Construction Corp. v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Glassman v. Computervision Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Glassman v. Computervision Corp. , 90 F.3d 617 , 623 , (1st Cir. 1996). *Page 5 In this case, Plaintiffs claim that Kent's motion to amend its answer to add additional affirmative defenses is futile because neither statute affords Kent protection from the Plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kent County Water Authority v. State (Department of Health)
green
1 sentence2006In Cullen I we stated as follows: “ ‘[T]he filing of one meaningful application for administrative relief will ordinarily be a necessary,’ but not necessarily sufficient, ‘precondition for invoking the futility exception.’ ” Id. at 906 (quoting Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51, 61 (1st Cir.1991)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.