PUBLISHED ORDERS
TERM 2005 - 2006

Please note: Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to view and print these files.  You may download it for free by the clicking on the icon.

(To view PDF files)

Click on each link to view opinion

In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor (Casino III), No. 06-201 (July 13, 2006)

State v. Lewis Elliott, No. 05-187 (June 9, 2006)

Northern Trust Co. et al v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Westerly et al, No. 05-76 (June 6, 2006)

State v. Angell-Dean Brown, No. 05-128 (May 31, 2006)

Margaret Strepp v. Thomas Strepp, No. 05-227 (May 26, 2006)

Bernardo Figueroa v. State of Rhode Island, No. 03-231 (May 4, 2006)

Jose Doctor v. State of Rhode Island, No. 04-78 (May 4, 2006)

Brian K. Crum v. Jordan W. Horowitz et al, No. 04-209 (May 1, 2006)

William Napier et al v. Epoch Corporation, No. 05-114 (May 1, 2006)

State v. Norbert Caba, No. 05-80 (April 28, 2006)

Thomas C. Riley v. Phyllis A. Stafford, No. 05-151 (April 24, 2006)

State v. Roosevelt White, No. 05-138 (Amended - April 14, 2006)

In re Dakota G., No. 03-535 (April 14, 2006)

In re Samuel Y, No. 04-349 (April 12, 2006)

Weybosset Hills Investments, LLC v. Thomas Rossi, in his capacity as tax assessor for the City of Providence, No. 05-192 (April 12, 2006)

Gelfuso and Lachut, Inc. v. Mary's Italian Restaurant, Inc., et al, No. 04-244 (April 11, 2006)

State v. Miguel Ducally, No. 05-34 (April 11, 2006)

State v. John N. Falcone, No. 04-288 (March 16, 2006)

Richard L. Gallaher v. Karen Dutton, No. 00-172 (February 20, 2006)

Sturbridge Home Builders, Inc., as nominee of Seaport Home Builders, Inc. v. Downing Seaport, Inc. et al, No. 04-378 (February 17, 2006)

State v. Roosevelt White, No. 05-138 (February 17, 2006) 

In re Danesha J., No. 04-348 (January 19, 2006)

State v. Jerry R. House, No. 05-78 (January 19, 2006)

State v. Howard M. Cosores, No. 03-440 (January 11, 2006)

State v. Michael Ballard, No. 03-140 (December 22, 2005)

Michael Marra v. Dennis Finlay, Treasurer for the Town of Smithfield, et al, No. 04-318 (December 15, 2005)

Alfred Caron et al v. Town of North Smithfield, No. 03-315 (December 5, 2005)

State v. Joshua Maciorski, No. 05-001 (December 2, 2005)

West Reservoir, LLC v. Town of Smithfield Zoning Board of Review, No. 05-7 (November 10, 2005)

West Reservoir, LLC, a for-profit property developer, appealed from a decision of the State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB) upholding the Town of Smithfield zoning board’s continuance of the hearing on its comprehensive permit application to construct a mixed-use commercial and residential development pursuant to the Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 53 of title 45 (the act.  The application was subject to a moratorium that prohibited for-profit developers from using provisions of the act to propose low- or moderate-income developments between February 13, 2004 and January 31, 2005.  In accordance with the act, SHAB reviewed the application to determine its substantial completion as of February 13, 2004, and determined that, because of the interrelationship between the residential and commercial uses of the proposed development, West Reservoir’s application lacked sufficient details describing the project in its entirety to be “substantially complete” within the meaning of the statute. 

The Supreme Court affirmed SHAB’s ruling. 

Armand Cortellesso a/k/a Patriot Homes v. Town of Smithfield  Zoning Board of Review, No. 05-21 (November 10, 2005)

Armand Cortellesso appealed from a decision of the State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB) dismissing his appeal to SHAB for lack of standing.  He had filed a comprehensive permit application with the Smithfield Zoning Board of Review (zoning board) under the Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Act (the act).  The zoning board continued the hearings on the application because of a statutory moratorium prohibiting the use of any provisions of the act by for-profit developers between February 13, 2004 and January 31, 2005.  In accordance with an amendment to the act in July 2004, SHAB reviewed the application to determine whether it was “substantially complete” as of February 13, 2004. 

On February 13, 2004, the decisive date for the substantial completeness inquiry, plaintiff had transferred legal title in the property that was the subject of his application to a limited liability company that he claimed he created to protect himself from personal liability and for which he was the sole managing member.  SHAB did not reach the merits of the substantial completeness of plaintiff’s application, however, because it determined that plaintiff lacked personal standing to bring the appeal of the continuance of the hearings because he no longer individually had legal title to the property listed in the application.  The Supreme Court affirmed SHAB’s ruling.

Patricia A. Seddon v. Carl E. Duke, No. 05-27 (October 31, 2005)

State v. Carlos B. Lopes, No. 04-143 (October 24, 2005)

State v. John Bergevine, No. 04-327 (October 20, 2005)

In re Marjorie R. Yasher, Magistrate Judge for the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, No. 05-271 (October 7, 2005)