(a) From any final decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the family court,
except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, there shall be an appeal to
the supreme court, which appeal, in all civil cases except paternity proceedings under
chapter 8 of title 15, shall follow the procedure for appeal in civil actions as provided in chapter 24 of title 9. A decision granting a divorce shall be appealable upon entry and, except as otherwise
provided by law, the correctness of the decision shall not be reviewable upon an appeal
from a final decree for divorce entered in pursuance of § 15-5-23. Appeals in criminal cases in which the family court exercises jurisdiction over
adults, and in paternity cases under chapter 8 of title 15, shall follow the procedure for appeal as provided in chapter 24 of title 9. The provisions of chapter 24 of title 9 and applicable procedural rules relating to the superior court shall apply to the
family court in matters appealed from the family court; provided, that on appeal,
the supreme court may by rule provide for certain circumstances as it may deem appropriate.
(b) Every person aggrieved by any decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the
family court relating to modification of alimony or of child support, or a finding
of contempt for failure to pay alimony or child support, may, within twenty (20) days
after entry of the decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict, seek review of questions
of law in the supreme court by petition for writ of certiorari in accordance with
the procedure contained in this chapter. The petition for a writ of certiorari shall
set forth errors claimed. Upon the filing of a petition with the clerk of the supreme
court, the supreme court may, if it sees fit, issue its writ of certiorari to the
family court to certify to the supreme court the record of the proceeding under review,
or so much of it as was submitted to the family court by the parties, together with
any additional record of the proceeding in the family court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case:
Henderson v. Henderson, 818 A.2d 669 (R.I. 2003).
Henderson v. Henderson, 818 A.2d 669 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 3× “1983) (citing § 14-1-52; G.L.1956 § 9-24-7). “Another exception, judicial in origin, permits a review of a decree which, although in a strict sense interlocutory, has such an element of finality that we will act before the case has finally terminated in order to prevent possible…”
Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 375 A.2d 911 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 2× “We note first, as we did above, that respondent’s appeal from that final decree was denied in February 1974 so that only actions taken during the period from August to February are at issue.”
Gardiner v. Gardiner, 821 A.2d 229 (R.I. 2003).
· cites it 2× “1995); see also G.L.1956 § 14-1-52(a). Interlocutoiy orders are reviewable only by way of writ of certiorari.”
In Re Jessica C., 690 A.2d 1357 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The respondent filed the instant appeal pursuant to G.L.1956 § 14-1-52, and, on October 1, 1996, following a prebriefing conference, the case was assigned to the regular calendar for full briefing and argument.”
Tamayo v. Arroyo, 15 A.3d 1031 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 4× “General Laws 1956 § 14-1-52 states in pertinent part: “(a) From any final decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the [Fjamily [Cjourt, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, there shall be an appeal to the [SJupreme [Cjourt * * *.”
Elizabeth Boyer v. Chief Judge Haiganush Bedrosian, 57 A.3d 259 (R.I. 2012).
“The defendants further argue that the claims will not evade review because, if the Truancy Court personnel do not comply with the administrative order, a litigant may pursue an appeal under §§ 14-1-52 or 8-1-2 to the Supreme Court or under § 8-10-3.”
Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 380 A.2d 964 (R.I. 1977).
· cites it 2× “General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§14-1-52 and 9-24-7. See Johnson v. Johnson, 111 R.”
In Re Joseph J., 465 A.2d 150 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 2× “We do, however, grant review when the case falls within previously enunciated exceptions to this rule, such as the legislatively created exception that allows a party to appeal the granting of injunctive relief.”
In Re Antonio G., 657 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 1995).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 14-1-52. The Issues on Appeal On appeal, Mildred argued that DCYF failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she was unfit.”
Mattera v. Mattera, 669 A.2d 538 (R.I. 1996).
“1956 (1994 Reenactment) § 14-1-52. Hearings on the issue of counsel fees resumed, and on March 11, 1993, an order was entered denying plaintiffs motion to assess counsel fees against intervenors.”
Parker v. Parker, 238 A.2d 57 (R.I. 1968).
“…229 A.2d 850 , treat the notice of intention as though it had been a claim of appeal filed pursuant to G. L. 1956, §14-1-52, as amended.”
Milliken v. Milliken, 390 A.2d 934 (R.I. 1978).
“The case is before us on the petitioner William Milliken's appeal pursuant to § 14-1-52 as amended by P.L.1972, ch. 169, § 28 from the decree of the Family Court justice.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-52(a) — 8 cases
Henderson v. Henderson, 818 A.2d 669 (R.I. 2003).
“1983) (citing § 14-1-52; G.L.1956 § 9-24-7). “Another exception, judicial in origin, permits a review of a decree which, although in a strict sense interlocutory, has such an element of finality that we will act before the case has finally terminated in order to prevent possible…”
Gardiner v. Gardiner, 821 A.2d 229 (R.I. 2003).
“1995); see also G.L.1956 § 14-1-52(a). Interlocutoiy orders are reviewable only by way of writ of certiorari.”
Tamayo v. Arroyo, 15 A.3d 1031 (R.I. 2011).
“General Laws 1956 § 14-1-52 states in pertinent part: “(a) From any final decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the [Fjamily [Cjourt, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, there shall be an appeal to the [SJupreme [Cjourt * * *.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-1-52(b) — 11 cases
Tamayo v. Arroyo, 15 A.3d 1031 (R.I. 2011).
“General Laws 1956 § 14-1-52 states in pertinent part: “(a) From any final decree, judgment, order, decision, or verdict of the [Fjamily [Cjourt, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, there shall be an appeal to the [SJupreme [Cjourt * * *.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.