Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28-10 (2026)

Appointment and removal of members

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The superintendent shall appoint the other members of the division authorized by this chapter for terms of three (3) years each, and may remove any member after a hearing, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the division, and no member so removed shall be eligible to reappointment. No person shall be eligible for appointment for the first time by the superintendent unless the person shall be a citizen of the United States between the ages of eighteen (18) and thirty-five (35) years and shall have passed a physical and mental examination in accordance with the rules of the division.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1963–1997 · leading case: Foley v. Connelie, 419 F. Supp. 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Foley v. Connelie, 419 F. Supp. 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). · cites it 2× “71, § 1193 (1962); R.I.Gen.Laws Ann. § 42-28-10 (1970); S.D.”

Culhane v. Denisewich, 689 A.2d 1062 (R.I. 1997). “These charges were presented to a State Police hearing board pursuant to § 42-28-10. After hearing, the board recommended that Denisewich *1064 be discharged from his employment as a member of the State Police effective April 1, 1988.”

Gendron v. Stone, 209 A.2d 212 (R.I. 1965). · cites it 2× “1956, §42-28-10. At the completion thereof he was reappointed in June 1961 for a second term of three years.”

Culhane v. DeRobbio, 649 A.2d 507 (R.I. 1994). “1956 (1993 Reenactment) § 42-28-10, the plaintiff had the unreviewable authority to reappoint or not reappoint the trooper to another term.”

Petrarca v. State, 190 A.2d 477 (R.I. 1963). · cites it 2× “” Since continued service in the state police results from a succession of three-year terms, §42-28-10, and petitioner, although having served twenty years, had a year left to serve of his seventh such term, it would appear, as respondents contend, that he could not make his…”

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.