Every ruling, decision, and order of a zoning board of review and of a building, gas,
water, health, or electrical inspector of any municipality affecting the placing,
erection, and maintenance of any plant, building, wires, conductors, fixtures, structures,
equipment, or apparatus of any company under the supervision of the commission, shall
be subject to the right of appeal by any aggrieved party to the commission within
ten (10) days from the giving of notice of the ruling, decision, or order. The commission,
after hearing, upon notice to all parties in interest, shall, as speedily as possible,
determine the matter in question, weighing the consideration of public convenience,
necessity, and safety against the consideration of public zoning, and shall have jurisdiction
to affirm or revoke or modify the ruling, decision, or order to make any order in
substitution thereof. Every ordinance enacted, or regulation promulgated, by any town
or city affecting the mode or manner of operation or the placing or maintenance of
the plant and equipment of any company under the supervision of the commission, shall
be subject to the right of appeal by any aggrieved party to the commission within
ten (10) days from the enactment or promulgation. The commission, after a hearing,
upon notice to all parties in interest, shall determine the matter giving consideration
to its effect upon the public health, safety, welfare, comfort, and convenience.
Notes of Decisions
Town of East Greenwich v. O'NEIL, 617 A.2d 104 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 30× “1956 (1990 Reenactment) § 39-1-30, docket No. 194. Section 39-1-30 requires an appeal to the PUC from issues affecting electric utility companies.”
City of East Providence v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 566 A.2d 1305 (R.I. 1989).
· cites it 9× “1956 (1984 Reenactment) § 39-1-30, which requires an appeal to the commission of ordinances and regulations affecting companies “under the supervision of the commission,” does not apply to the respondents Rhode Island Cogeneration Associates, Newbay Corporation, and OEIG Limited…”
In Re Pursuant to § 39-1-30 of Ordinance Adopted by City of Providence, 745 A.2d 769 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 14× “Beginning on October 9, 1997, petitions were filed with the PUC by a number of parties (collectively, the utilities), seeking review of the Providence ordinance and regulations pursuant to G.L.1956 § 39-1-30. Eventually, the PUC consolidated the petitions of Providence Gas…”
East Bay Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of Barrington, 901 A.2d 1136 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 2× “(quoting G.L.1956 § 39-1-30). In rejecting East Greenwich’s argument that its comprehensive plan was not an “ordinance enacted, or regulation promulgated,” but rather was merely a statement of long-range goals, we held that “a comprehensive plan is not simply [an] innocuous…”
State v. Dearmas, 841 A.2d 659 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, when we are faced with statutory provisions that are in pari materia, we construe them in a manner that attempts to harmonize them and that is consistent with their general objective scope.”
Wigginton v. Centracchio, 787 A.2d 1151 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “§ 39-1-30 (2001). 7 Section 39-1-30 of the Utah Code provides in pertinent part: “Officers of the National Guard— Commissions.”
DelSanto v. Hyundai Motor Fin. Co., 882 A.2d 561 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 2× “1981); see also In re Petition for Review Pursuant to § 39-1-30 of Ordinance Adopted by the City of Providence, 745 A.”
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.