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 2004–2026 2 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 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 2006In 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 | 2 |
Asa S. Davis, III v. Town of Exetergreen2 sentences2023In the present case, we conclude that, given the inflexibility of the Division’s position throughout the proceedings in Apex that only the entity that paid the tax directly to the Division had standing, and the tax administrator’s decision concluding that Apex lacked standing, it was “transparently clear” that, under identical factual circumstances, Gunvor’s application for a refund of the Motor Fuel Tax “[would] not be granted.” Davis, 285 A.3d at 22 (quoting Cullen, 850 A.2d at 906). 2023We have opined “that futility may be established in special circumstances * * * where the [agency] has made it transparently clear that [the requested relief] will not be granted.” Cullen, 850 A.2d at 906 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Davis, 285 A.3d at 22 (explaining that the futility exception did not apply because the plaintiff had failed to show that the town’s refusal to issue a permit “would be a near certainty”). | 1 | 1 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. Herringtongreen2 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 |
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.