R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-52 (2026)

Finality of board’s decision — Petition for judicial review

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Each party shall be promptly furnished a copy of the decision and the supporting findings and conclusions of the board of review. The decision shall be final unless any party in interest, including the director, initiates judicial review by filing a petition with the clerk of the sixth division of the district court within thirty (30) days as set forth in the administrative procedures act, chapter 35 of title 42. The petition for review shall state the grounds upon which review is sought but need not be verified. Exceptions taken to the rulings of the board of review shall not be necessary to obtain judicial review nor shall a bond be required either as a condition of initiating a proceeding for judicial review of a determination of benefit rights or of entering an appeal from the decision of the court upon that review.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1962–2013 · leading case: New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fascio, 254 A.2d 758 (R.I. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fascio, 254 A.2d 758 (R.I. 1969). · cites it 9× “Thereafter, on August 8, 1968,' petitioner, acting pursuant to the provisions of §28-44-52, 1 filed in the supe *714 rior court a petition for judicial review of the decision of the board of review of the department.”
Baker v. Dep't of Emp. & Training Bd. of Review, 637 A.2d 360 (R.I. 1994). · cites it 3× “1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-44-52. The Pawtucket School Department intervened on the appeal.”
Berberian v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., Bd. of Review, 414 A.2d 480 (R.I. 1980). “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-52 and G.L.1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 42-35-15, as amended by P.”
Volino v. Gen. Dynamics, 539 A.2d 531 (R.I. 1988). “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-52. Therefore, the decision of the board of review is final.”
Cahoone v. Bd. of Review of the Dep't of Emp. Sec., 246 A.2d 213 (R.I. 1968). “1956, §28-44-52, we consider them as having been brought pursuant to §42-35-15(gl, as enacted by P.”
Fontaine v. Bd. of Review of Dep't of Emp. Sec., 210 A.2d 867 (R.I. 1965). · cites it 2× “1956, §28-44-52, to review the decision of the respondent board denying the claim of each petitioner for benefits under the employment security act, G.”
Renza v. Murray, 525 A.2d 53 (R.I. 1987). “1956 (1986 Reenactment) § 28-44-52, which specifically states that decisions of the board of review can be reviewed by “any party in interest, including the director.”
Harraka v. Bd. of Review of Dep't of Emp. Sec., 200 A.2d 595 (R.I. 1964). “1956, §28-44-52, to obtain a judicial review of a decision of the board of review of the department of employment security.”
Rector v. Dir. of Dep't of Emp. Sec., 390 A.2d 370 (R.I. 1978). “1 General Laws 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-44-52 has been amended since the institution of the instant proceeding to provide for review in the Sixth Division of the District Court rather than in the Superior Court.”
Elias-Clavet v. Bd. of Review, 15 A.3d 1008 (R.I. 2011). “Jurisdiction for such review resides in the Sixth Division of the District Court pursuant to § 28-44-52, and the standard of review in complaints so postured is provided by § 42-35-15(g).”
Cahoone v. Bd. of Review Dept. of Emp. Sec., 246 A.2d 213 (R.I. 1968). “§ 28-44-52. We consider them as having been brought pursuant to § 42-35-15(g), as enacted by P.”
Whitelaw v. Bd. of Review of the Dep't of Emp. Sec., 185 A.2d 104 (R.I. 1962). “Judicial review of the board’s decision is authorized by §28-44-52, but the scope of such review is defined by §28-44-54 in the following language: “The jurisdiction of the reviewing court shall be confined to questions of law, and, in the absence of fraud, the findings of fact…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.