Any final order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or stated
in the record. Any final order shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law,
separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be
accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting
the findings. If a party, in accordance with agency rules, submitted proposed findings
of fact, the order shall include a ruling upon each proposed finding. Parties shall
be notified either personally or by mail of any order. Included with the final order
shall be a separate notice advising the parties of the availability of judicial review,
the appeal period and the procedure for filing an appeal, and providing a reference
to the statutory authority. If the agency fails to provide such notice, the time for
taking an appeal shall be extended for an additional thirty (30) days beyond the time
otherwise authorized by law. Upon request, a copy of any final order stated in the
record shall be delivered or mailed forthwith to each party and to the party’s attorney
of record.
Notes of Decisions
Champlin's Realty Assocs. v. Tikoian, 989 A.2d 427 (R.I. 2010).
· cites it 2× “There, the CRMC rejected the petitioner's application to relocate his cottage to a vacant lot without making any findings of fact, a violation of § 42-35-12. Sakonnet, 536 A.2d at 896 . This Court further stated in Sakonnet that an agency decision must be supported by factual…”
Randall v. Norberg, 403 A.2d 240 (R.I. 1979).
“According to petitioner, the crucial factfinding process is made by the tax administrator, who is obviously an interested party.”
Bayview Towing, Inc. v. Stevenson, 676 A.2d 325 (R.I. 1996).
“The final orders from which an appeal may be taken are defined in § 42-35-12. In this case, there is no question that Bayview and Sutton’s complaint was filed in the Superior Court within thirty days of the hearing officer’s intended final decision and order.”
G. H. Waterman & Co. v. Norberg, 412 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The petitioner first contends that respondent failed to comply with § 42-35-12 of the Administrative Procedures Act because he did not rule on each of petitioner’s “proposed findings.”
Mart Realty, Inc. v. Norberg, 303 A.2d 361 (R.I. 1973).
“1 After such hearing the tax administrator filed *405 a written decision in compliance with the requirements of §42-35-12. On the basis of certain findings of fact made by him, he held that the excise tax imposed by §'§44-18-20 and 44-18-21 2 is a tax imposed on the use, storage…”
Colonial Hilton Inns of New England, Inc. v. Rego, 284 A.2d 69 (R.I. 1971).
“In our view we do not reach the petitioner’s argument concerning the director’s failure to include in his decision “findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated” as required by §42-35-12. Nor do we reach the merits of the petitioner’s claim that the director erred…”
E. Commc'ns Corp. v. Burman, 397 A.2d 1317 (R.I. 1979).
“2d 586 (1977), In support of its position that the writ was providently issued, Eastern now contends that the original PUC order of September 13, 1976, directing NET to file a revised tariff, was interlocutory and therefore not subject to review; that its second order of…”
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.