R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 39-5-1 (2026)

Judicial review

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

Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the commission may, within seven (7) days from the date of the decision or order, petition the supreme court for a writ of certiorari to review the legality and reasonableness of the decision or order. The petition for a writ of certiorari shall fully set forth the specific reasons for which it is claimed that the decision or order is unlawful or unreasonable. Chapter 35 of title 42 shall not be applicable to appeals from the commission. The procedure established by this chapter shall constitute the exclusive remedy for persons and companies aggrieved by any order or judgment of the commission; provided, however, any person aggrieved by a final decision or order of the administrator may appeal therefrom to the superior court pursuant to the provisions of § 42-35-15.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2024 · leading case: In Re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Proj., 25 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Proj., 25 A.3d 482 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 8× “Before this Court, pursuant to a statutory petition for a writ of certiorari, G.L. 1956 § 39-5-1, are Toray Plastics (America), Inc.”
In Re New England Gas Co., 842 A.2d 545 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 6× “” The commission granted New England Gas a temporary stay of its order to afford the company adequate time to seek relief from this Court. One day after the commission issued its order on May 6, 2002, New England Gas petitioned this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to review…”
Providence Water Supply Bd. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 708 A.2d 537 (R.I. 1998). · cites it 13× “” The PWSB petitioned this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari on November 25, 1996, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 39-5-1. The writ was issued on November 26, 1996, in accordance with § 39-5-2.”
Interstate Navigation Co. v. Burke, 465 A.2d 750 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 12× “In that case the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the state’s counterpart to G.L. § 39-5-1. Unlike our statute, the Massachusetts statute authorizes appeals “from any final decision, order or ruling of the commission * * Mass.”
Blackstone Valley Chamber of Com. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 452 A.2d 931 (R.I. 1982). · cites it 5× “1956 (1977 Reenactment) § 39-5-1. The Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce (the chamber) filed the petition seeking review of actions by the Public Utilities Commission (the commission).”
In Re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Proj., 19 A.3d 1226 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 10× “ORDER This matter came before the Supreme Court on consolidated petitions for certio-rari filed pursuant to G.L.1956 § 39-5-1. The petitioners, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Toray Plastics (America), Inc.”
Providence Gas Co. v. Burman, 376 A.2d 687 (R.I. 1977). · cites it 6× “Section 39-5-1, as amended, provides that the "exclusive" vehicle for seeking judicial review of any decision or order of the commission shall be a petition for certiorari to this court, which is to be filed within 7 days from the date of such decision or order.”
Portsmouth Water & Fire Dist. v. Rhode Island Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 150 A.3d 596 (R.I. 2016). · cites it 5× “This case came before the Supreme Court for argument on November 3, 2016, pursuant to a statutory petition for a writ of certiorari filed in accordance with G.L. 1956 § 39-5-1. The petitioner, Portsmouth Water and Fire District (Portsmouth), seeks review of a Public Utilities…”
Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Burke, 381 A.2d 1358 (R.I. 1977). · cites it 3× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §39-5-1 to review the December 1, 1976 decision and order of the Public Utilities Commission.”
In Re Island Hi-Speed Ferry, LLC., 852 A.2d 524 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 6× “[10] Likewise, I would also hold that the new rate proceeding did not moot the issue of whether the Town of New Shoreham (town) possessed a statutory right under G.”
In Re Providence Water Supply Bd.'s Application to Change Rate Schedules, 989 A.2d 110 (R.I. 2010). · cites it 5× “This case is before the Supreme Court as a statutory petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, the City of Providence (city), pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 39-5-1. The city is seeking review of a decision by the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 1 denying a rate…”
United States v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 635 A.2d 1135 (R.I. 1993). · cites it 7× “1956 (1990 Reenactment) § 39-5-1 to review a report and order of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (the commission) in docket No.”
Show all 89 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.