R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-56-30 (2026)

Classification board

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of the study and in order to regulate a system of classification of persons committed to the custody of the department, there shall be within the department a classification board consisting of five (5) persons to be appointed by the director of the department of corrections to serve at the director’s pleasure. The director shall also have the authority to establish an additional classification board to facilitate the classification system when the director deems it necessary.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Bishop v. State, 667 A.2d 275 (R.I. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bishop v. State, 667 A.2d 275 (R.I. 1995). “Section 42-56-31, which sets out the duties of the prison classification board, requires the board to review the “studies” made of each inmate and to recommend to the director a security classification and rehabilitation program for each inmate. The director is then required to…”
L'Heureux v. State Dep't of Corr., 708 A.2d 549 (R.I. 1998). “We held that the applicable statutes governing the classification process, §§ 42-56-30, 42-56-31, and 42-56-32, did not establish criteria that would give rise to any statutory inmate liberty interest in the prison-inmate classification system.”
DeCiantis v. Rhode Island Dep't of Corr., 840 A.2d 1090 (R.I. 2003). “General Laws 1956, §§ 42-56-30, 42-56-31, 42-56-32.”
Sevegny v. Robinson, No. 1:23-cv-00203 (D.R.I. Aug. 29, 2023). · cites it 4× “R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-56-30 to 32. subjected to discrimination or denied him access to programming based on a disability or his SPMI classification; therefore, a potential ADA/§ 504 claim is not plausibly stated.”
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.