Rhode Island General Laws
R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-35-29 (2026)
Review by supreme court — Procedure
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any person aggrieved by a final decree of the appellate division of the workers’ compensation court rendered pursuant to § 28-35-28 may, within twenty (20) days from the entry of the final decree, petition the supreme court for a writ of certiorari to review the decree on the grounds specified in § 28-35-30.
(b) The petition for a writ of certiorari shall set forth the errors claimed.
(c) 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 workers’ compensation court to certify to the supreme court the record of proceedings before the appellate division, together with any additional record of the proceedings before the trial judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1959–2013 · leading case: New Harbor Vill., LLC v. Town of New Shoreham Zoning Bd. of Review, 894 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2006).
New Harbor Vill., LLC v. Town of New Shoreham Zoning Bd. of Review, 894 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2006). “, G.L.1956 § 28-35-29 (review by certiorari of decisions of Appellate Division of the Workers’ Compensation Court); G.”
Brogno v. W & J Assocs., Ltd., 698 A.2d 191 (R.I. 1997). “This case came before us on a petition for certiorari filed pursuant to G.L.1956 § 28-35-29. Salvatore Brogno (Brogno) seeks review of a final decree of the Appellate Division of the Workers’ Compensation Court that affirmed a trial judge’s finding that Brogno was not a…”
Unauth. Prac. of Law Com. v. State, Dep't of Wkrs. Comp., 543 A.2d 662 (R.I. 1988). “1956 (1986 Reenactment) §§ 28-35-29 to 38 (inclusive). Under the present statutory scheme it is required that the department director assign an employee assistant to each case scheduled for an informal hearing.”
Labbadia v. State, 513 A.2d 18 (R.I. 1986). “1956 (1979 Reenactment) §§ 28-35-29 and -30, as amended by P.L.1984, ch.”
City of Pawtucket v. Pimental, 960 A.2d 981 (R.I. 2008). “Section 28-35-29(a). 5 . In K-Mart v. Whitney, 710 A.”
Bissonnette v. Fed. Dairy Co., Inc., 472 A.2d 1223 (R.I. 1984). “In addition to disregarding the requirements of § 28-35-28, employee has also disregarded those of § 28-35-29. That section requires an appellant upon appeal to this court to “file reasons of appeal stating specifically all the questions of law or equity decided adversely to him…”
Forte v. Fernando Originals, Ltd., 667 A.2d 780 (R.I. 1995). “In a final decree, entered on April 11, 1994, the Appellate Division sustained respondent’s appeal and modified the trial court’s amended decree by reducing Forte’s average weekly wage from $300 to $213.”
Simpson v. Dytex Chem. Co., 667 A.2d 1229 (R.I. 1995). “At a show cause hearing held on August 30, 1993, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge and entered a final decree on October 4, 1993.”
Thompson v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 251 A.2d 403 (R.I. 1969). “In support of its standing, respondent argues that §28-35-29, authorizes an appeal to this court only by a person aggrieved by the final decree of the full commission.”
Clemm v. Frank Morrow Co., 153 A.2d 557 (R.I. 1959). “For this reason serious doubts exist as to whether respondent is an aggrieved person within the meaning of general laws 1956, §28-35-29. However, for our present purposes we shall assume without deciding that respondent is aggrieved by the final decrees of the commission.”
Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. Butler, 178 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1962). “1956, §28-35-29. Although petitioner’s criticism of respondent’s reasons of appeal is justifiable as to form, we are of the opinion that solely by reason of departure from the prescribed form the appeal in the instant cause is not fatally defective.”
Munro v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 423 A.2d 832 (R.I. 1980). “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-29(a). On December 9,1975, the employee filed reasons of appeal, and on December 20,1976 (more than a year thereafter), the employer moved to dismiss the employee’s appeal on the ground that the injury referred to in the reasons of appeal was not…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-35-29(a): 3 cases
City of Pawtucket v. Pimental, 960 A.2d 981 (R.I. 2008). “Section 28-35-29(a). 5 . In K-Mart v. Whitney, 710 A.”
Munro v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 423 A.2d 832 (R.I. 1980). “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-35-29(a). On December 9,1975, the employee filed reasons of appeal, and on December 20,1976 (more than a year thereafter), the employer moved to dismiss the employee’s appeal on the ground that the injury referred to in the reasons of appeal was not…”
Robert J. Michaud v. Rhode Island Dep't of Labor & Training, 72 A.3d 870 (R.I. 2013).
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.