Rhode Island General Laws
R.I. Gen. Laws § 44-19-18 (2026)
Appeals
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Appeals from administrative orders or decisions made pursuant to any provisions of this chapter are to the sixth (6th) division district court pursuant to chapter 8 of title 8. The taxpayer’s right to appeal under this chapter is expressly made conditional upon prepayment of all taxes, interest, and penalties, unless the taxpayer moves for and is granted an exemption from the prepayment requirement pursuant to § 8-8-26.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1966–2014 · leading case: Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2009).
Long v. Dell, Inc., 984 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2009). “Conversely, defendants and the tax administrator, argue that in its essence, this case is a tax case and that plaintiffs should have made and then exhausted them administrative remedies, *1079 first with the Division of Taxation, followed by an appeal to the Sixth Division…”
Herald Press, Inc. v. Norberg, 405 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 1979). “Herald asserts, however, that it was entitled to a de novo hearing in the Superior Court under the *270 provisions of §44-19-18. This section was first enacted in P.”
Sterling Shoe Co. v. Norberg, 411 F. Supp. 128 (D.R.I. 1976). “G.L. § 44-19-18, have been superceded by the analogous provisions of the APA, R.”
Prospecting Unlimited, Inc. v. Norberg, 376 A.2d 702 (R.I. 1977). “After paying the amounts of the deficiencies, the petitioners appealed to Superior Court pursuant to §44-19-18. A Superior Court justice reviewed the record and the findings of the tax administrator and affirmed his decision.”
Langton v. Demers, 423 A.2d 1149 (R.I. 1980). “The trial justice held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the validity of the tax because he failed to comply with the provisions of G.L. 1956 § 44-19-18, 3 which requires the taxpayer to pay the administrator the amount alleged outstanding.”
Randall v. Norberg, 403 A.2d 240 (R.I. 1979). “Specifically, petitioner maintains that §42-35-15(b), which requires payment of the disputed amount as a precondition to seeking judicial review of the tax administrator’s decision, results in deprivation of a taxpayer’s property without due process.”
Langton v. Demers, 230 A.2d 870 (R.I. 1967). “2 Any petition for judicial review of an assessment made by the administrator, however, is conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of §44-19-18. 3 This section makes it mandatory that a taxpayer seeking such a review not only file his petition in the superior court for…”
Ernest Barone v. State of Rhode Island, 93 A.3d 938 (R.I. 2014). “The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal pursuant to G.L.1956 § 44-19-18 and § 44-19-25 to the Sixth Division District Court contemporaneously with his filing of the complaint in the present action in Superior Court.”
Langton v. Brady Elec. Co., 216 A.2d 134 (R.I. 1966). “ys from the date of mailing by the tax administrator of the notice of such assessment and shall request a hearing relative thereto; and the tax administrator shall, as soon as practicable, fix a time and place for such hearing and shall, after such hearing, determine the correct…”
Red Fox Gingerale Co. v. Langton, 217 A.2d 466 (R.I. 1966). “1956, §44-19-18, was brought by Red Fox Gingerale Company, the taxpayer, against the tax administrator of the state of Rhode Island, hereinafter referred to as the administrator.”
Mossberg-Hubbard Div. of Wanskuck v. Norberg, 432 A.2d 1176 (R.I. 1981). “1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 44-19-18, Mossberg-Hubbard appealed the decision of the tax administrator to the District Court.”
Church of Pan, Inc. v. Norberg, 445 A.2d 294 (R.I. 1982). “1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 44-19-18. The parties argued this matter on March 16, 1982.”
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.