(a) For the purposes stated in this chapter there is incorporated in each city and town
a body corporate and politic which shall be known as the municipal detention facility
corporation of the municipality. The corporation is a public corporation, which is
an instrumentality and agency of the municipality, but has a distinct legal existence
from the municipality, and which has purposes that are consistent with the declaration
of purpose set out in this chapter, and which has powers that are necessary and incidental
to the effectuation of the stated purposes.
(b) The corporation of any city or town shall not have the authority to transact any business
or exercise any powers under this chapter until the city or town council shall by
resolution declare that there is a need for the corporation to function in the city
or town.
(c) The corporation of each city or town shall cease to exist unless the city or town
council passes the resolution specified in subsection (b) prior to December 31, 1991,
the corporation of the municipality has entered into a contract for the operation
of a detention facility with the United States Marshals’ Service prior to December
31, 1991, and the site of the detention facility has received all necessary zoning
approvals by December 31, 1991.
Notes of Decisions
Lacedra v. Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility (2004)
rid · cites it 5×
“1 On July 11, 1991, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed the Municipal Detention Facility Corporations Act (“MDFCA”), R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-54-1, et seq (1991). The MDFCA’s purpose was to promote economic development in Rhode Island by allowing the construction of a prison…”
Sarro v. Cornell Corrections, Inc. (2003)
rid · cites it 4×
“Background In 1991, Rhode Island enacted the Municipal Detention Facility Corporations Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-54-1, et seq., which authorized municipalities to create public corporations that would own and operate detention facilities.”
Huguenin v. Ponte (1998)
rid · cites it 3×
“3 See generally R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 45-54-1 to 45-54-28 (1991 Reenactment).”
Glennie v. Garland (2023)
rid · cites it 4×
“21 Over the years, this Court has struggled how to categorize CFDFC in light of its status as an entity authorized by the State of Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 45-54-1, et seq., and created by the municipality of Central Falls, which is involved in its governance.”
Wright v. Martin (2025)
ca1 · cites it 3×
“See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 45-54-1 to -2 (1991). The Act's purpose was twofold: "to meet the need for economic development" within Rhode Island and to "address the detention facility needs of the United States.”
UMB Bank, N.A. v. City of Central Falls (2022)
rid · cites it 2×
“First, the Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the CFDFC board of directors to rescind the actions challenged by the complaint; otherwise, this Order provides that the CFDFC directors would continue to manage CFDFC pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 45-54-1, et seq. ECF…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-54-1(a) — 1 case
Wright v. Martin (2025)
ca1
“See R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 45-54-1 to -2 (1991). The Act's purpose was twofold: "to meet the need for economic development" within Rhode Island and to "address the detention facility needs of the United States.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-54-1(c) — 1 case
Glennie v. Garland (2023)
rid
“21 Over the years, this Court has struggled how to categorize CFDFC in light of its status as an entity authorized by the State of Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 45-54-1, et seq., and created by the municipality of Central Falls, which is involved in its governance.”
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.