R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-20

Law changed since P.L. 1991, ch. 307, § 1 repealed § 45-24-20 effective July 1, 1993; this rule applies only to proceedings governed by the former section.

Section 45-24-20 requires notice of the board’s decision after reconsideration, and the thirty-day appeal period begins when notice is given.

Cranston Jewish Center v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1963-01-28

In the peculiar circumstances of this case it is our opinion that it was the duty of the board to notify the petitioner of their decision and, having failed in such duty, the thirty-day period did not begin until such notice was given.

Law changed since The 1969 amendment moved initial review to Superior Court; P.L. 1991, ch. 307, § 1 repealed § 45-24-20 effective July 1, 1993.

Section 45-24-20 gives a potential appellant 30 days after the zoning decision is filed in the board's office to present a petition for certiorari.

Lindberg's, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1970-03-06

We cannot agree. In our opinion, the pertinent terms of the statute are clear and unambiguous, and provide a potential appellant with a period of 30 days after the decision was filed in the office of the board. It is not disputed in this case that the office of the zoning officer of the city is the office of the board, and, in a communication from the zoning officer to counsel for the remonstrant, that officer disclosed that the decision was in fact filed in his office on August 1, 1969. It is clear, then, that the petition was timely filed and that this court had jurisdiction to review the actions of the board in granting this special exception.

Law changed since P.L. 1991, ch. 307, § 1 repealed § 45-24-20 effective July 1, 1993; this rule applies only to proceedings governed by the former section.

Section 45-24-20 imposes a strict 20-day period for appealing a zoning board decision to the court.

Andreoni v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of Bristol, 91-3879 (1992) · filed 1992-09-10

Section 45-24-20 contains a strict 20-day limitation period for appeal to this Court from a decision of a zoning board. Since the additional plaintiffs have not brought or joined in the appeal within the statutory period they were barred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 provides that filing a certiorari petition does not stay the challenged permit.

Tantimonaco v. ZONING BD. OF JOHNSTON · filed 1967-08-03

Although the filing of such a petition does not act as a stay, G. L. 1956, §45-24-20, common prudence understandably acts as a brake against incurring obligations, the benefits of which would be cancelled by an adverse decision of this court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 requires a zoning board to keep a record stating the facts and grounds supporting its decision so that courts can review it.

Coderre v. Zoning Bd. of Pawtucket · filed 1967-06-09

Its mandate directs the board to keep a record which will “ * * * concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from * * G. L. 1956, §45-24-20. We have construed the act as requiring the board to set forth the ground or grounds for its decision so that we might know whether the decision on the facts bears a substantial relation to the public interest, and whether it is consistent with an exercise of reasonable discretion, or instead is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the board's powder.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 requires a zoning board decision to provide factual grounds sufficient for mandatory judicial review.

Coderre v. ZONING BD. OF PAWTUCKET · filed 1968-03-20

On our examination thereof, however, we were obliged to conclude that the remonstrating petitioners for certiorari could not obtain the judicial review secured to them by the mandatory provisions of G. L. 1956, §45-24-20. This was so because the board’s decision was conclusional without pointing to those factual circumstances upon which it presumably relied in justification of'its decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 places initial judicial review of zoning board decisions in Superior Court and permits further Supreme Court review by certiorari rather than appeal as of right.

Bassi v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Providence · filed 1970-11-19

Prior to the 1969 amendment of §45-24-20, the Supreme Court had exclusive and original appellate jurisdiction to review zoning board decisions, and a person aggrieved by the action of a zoning board was entitled as of right to a review by this court on statutory certiorari. ... That procedure was changed by the 1969 amendment. It makes the Superior Court the initial judicial reviewing tribunal, and provides that an appeal from a zoning board decision may be claimed by an aggrieved party by filing of a complaint setting forth his reasons of appeal. Although explicit on the procedures which then follow in that court, the amendatory legislation is silent on whether a party dissatisfied with the disposition there made may obtain review in this court. ... We hold, then, that one challenging the exercise of jurisdiction by the Superior Court in a zoning appeal case, although not entitled as of right to appeal to this court, may nonetheless obtain review here by moving for leave to file a petition for a prerogative writ of certiorari.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 governs Superior Court review of zoning matters and permits affirmance when sufficient evidence supports the zoning decision.

Hardy v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC. · filed 1977-12-19

Our only concern is whether the trial justice acted within his authority under G.L. 1956 (1970 Reenactment) §45-24-20 in his review of this zoning matter. Town of E. Greenwich v. Day, 119 R.I. 1, 6, 375 A.2d 953, 956 (1977). As in Prospecting Unlimited, Inc., decided under a statute virtually identical to §45-24-20, we need not determine here whether a Superior Court justice’s precise standard of review over zoning boards should be interpreted as “clearly erroneous,” “substantial evidence,” or “any evidence.” Suffice it to say that under any one of these standards, there was sufficient evidence in the record before the trial justice for him to affirm the zoning board’s decision that the three building permits issued on March 15, 1971, to Hickory Ridge Campground were lawfully issued by the building inspector.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (5) requires the Superior Court to review the whole record and uphold zoning board findings supported by substantial evidence.

Apostolou v. Genovesi · filed 1978-07-20(5)

Section 45-24-20(5) provides that the Superior Court must examine the decision of the zoning board to ascertain whether the substantive rights of the aggrieved parties have been prejudiced because of findings and inferences which are “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record.” In other words, the Superior Court must examine the whole record to determine whether the findings of the zoning board were supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 requires the Superior Court to review zoning board decisions under its statutory criteria rather than the general certiorari standard.

Toohey v. Kilday · filed 1980-06-04

But as we delineated in explicit detail in Apostolou v. Genovesi, R.I., 388 A.2d 821 (1978), since 1969 when the Legislature amended § 45-24-20, we no longer review zoning board decisions directly by way of certiorari. The 1969 amendment altered the prior appellate review procedure to provide for an avenue of appeal from the zoning board to the Superior Court. 388 A.2d at 824. Hence, the general certiorari standard of review is inapplicable in the Superior Court, which must follow the statutory criteria set forth in § 45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits the Superior Court's review of zoning-board factual determinations to decisions that are arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.

Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co. · filed 1981-01-21

In reviewing zoning-board decisions, the Superior Court shall not “substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact” unless the decision was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. General Laws 1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits judicial review of zoning board decisions and prohibits weighing evidence on questions of fact.

Mendonsa v. Corey · filed 1985-07-05(5)

In situations like the present case where there is conflicting testimony from equally qualified experts and substantial evidence exists on both sides of the controversy, we believe that the better rule is to limit the extent of judicial review. In such circumstances, we believe that the board, who had before it the individual witnesses and had the opportunity to judge their credibility, was in a better position than the court to resolve the conflict. In our opinion this conclusion is consistent with the language of § 45-24-20 prohibiting the weighing of evidence on questions of fact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 bars a Superior Court justice reviewing a zoning board decision from substituting the justice’s judgment for the board’s.

Northeastern Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of New Shoreham · filed 1987-12-08

This contention overlooks the fact that the Superior Court justice, in reviewing the zoning board’s actions, is enjoined by § 45-24-20 from substituting his judgment for that of the zoning board.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 allows Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and reversal when substantial rights are prejudiced by an error of law.

Felicio v. Fleury · filed 1989-04-28(d)

When this court reviews the action taken by the Superior Court on its review of a zoning board decision by certiorari, our concern is whether the trial justice acted within his or her authority under § 45-24-20. ... As the trial justice did not recognize that the zoning board decision was affected by error of law, he did not act within his authority under § 45-24-20. Accordingly we quash the Superior Court judgment and remand the case with instructions to grant the plaintiff’s request for a variance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) allows the Superior Court to affirm, remand, or vacate a zoning board decision on specified grounds.

Denomme v. Mowry · filed 1989-05-15(d)

This section provides, in part, that the Superior Court justice may affirm the zoning board’s decision or remand the controversy for further proceedings, or may vacate the zoning board’s decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of clearly erroneous factual findings or where the decision has been affected by an error of law. Section 45-24-20(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification under specified conditions.

R.J.E.P. Associates v. Hellewell · filed 1989-06-22(d)

When we examine the Superior Court’s review of a zoning-board decision, our primary concern is whether the trial justice acted within the authority granted in G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20. ... Section 45-24-20(d) states in part: “The [Superior] court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.” ... We shall not weigh the evidence but rather examine the record to determine whether competent evidence exists to support the Superior Court justice’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) permits the reviewing court to affirm or remand a zoning board decision, or reverse it when substantial rights were prejudiced by an error of law.

Skelley v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1990-02-13(d)

When reviewing a decision of the Superior Court in its consideration of an appeal from a municipal zoning board, this court’s concern is whether the trial justice acted within his or her authority as set forth in G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20. We shall not weigh the evidence but rather determine whether competent evidence exists to support the Superior Court justice’s decision. We shall not reverse the decision below unless shown that the Superior Court justice “misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence, or made findings that were clearly wrong.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 generally governs appeals from zoning board decisions to Superior Court, but it does not apply to mapped-street decisions, which proceed to the Supreme Court.

Potter v. Chettle · filed 1990-05-22

It is our opinion that the Superior Court incorrectly determined the nature of the appeal before it. The trial justice mistakenly determined that an appeal from the zoning board to the Superior Court was appropriate pursuant to § 45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 governs appeals from zoning board decisions to the Superior Court.

Audette v. Coletti · filed 1988-03-31

In reviewing by way of certiorari a judgment of the Superior Court rendered pursuant to appeals from zoning board decisions under G.L. 1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-24-20, this court applies the “some” or “any” evidence test and reviews the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists to support the findings of the trial court. Reversal of the judgment of the trial justice is required if this court finds that the trial justice misapplied the law, or that his findings were clearly wrong, or that he misconceived or overlooked material evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) authorizes a trial justice to remand a zoning case to the zoning board for further proceedings.

Roger Williams College v. Gallison · filed 1990-03-30(d)

We recognize that G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20(d) confers upon the trial justice the authority to remand a case to the zoning board of review for further proceedings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) bars the trial court from substituting its judgment for the zoning board's judgment about the weight of evidence on factual questions.

Bamber v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1991-06-03(d)

Our holding is supported by the language of § 45-24-20(d), which states that “[t]he [trial] court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits review of a Superior Court decision in a municipal zoning appeal to whether the trial justice acted within statutory authority and whether competent evidence supports the decision.

Sawyer v. Cozzolino · filed 1991-07-24

We note at the outset the well-settled rule that in reviewing a decision of the Superior Court in its consideration of an appeal from a municipal zoning board, this court’s review is confined to a determination of whether the trial justice acted within his or her authority as set forth in G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 directs the Superior Court how to review zoning board decisions, including limits on weighing facts and grounds for affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification.

Hein v. Town of Foster Zoning Board of Review, Pc904277 (1991) · filed 1991-12-16(d)

When reviewing appeals from zoning board decisions, the Superior Court is bound by the strictures of § 45-24-20 which reads in pertinent part: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 authorizes Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification for specified errors.

Harmel Corp. v. Members of the Zoning Board of Review · filed 1992-02-04(d)

The right of appeal of a zoning-board decision is granted by G.L.1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20. This statute provides that a decision of a zoning board may be reviewed by the Superior Court. ... On petition for certiorari to this court we must examine whether the trial justice acted within his or her authority under § 45-24-20. ... Hence we find that the trial justice did not act within his authority under § 45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 gives the Superior Court appellate jurisdiction over zoning board decisions and limits its review so it cannot substitute its judgment for the board's.

Santos v. Weiner, 90-8085 (1992) · filed 1992-02-17

Pursuant to R.I.G.L. § 45-24-20 , this Superior Court possesses appellate jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Board. However, the scope of this court's review is limited by § 45-24-20 . The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Leddy v. Dimuro, 90-1656 (1992) · filed 1992-04-15(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part: 45-24-20 . Appeals to superior court. — (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) sets the Superior Court's standard for reviewing zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification when statutory grounds for relief are shown.

Crozier v. Doire, 91-3789 (1992) · filed 1992-06-05(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part: ... Upon review of the entire record, it is incumbent upon this Court to determine what the Board's findings of fact were and whether they are supported by substantial evidence. ... Accordingly, and after a careful review of the record, this Court finds that the Board's finding that Lynch's quarrying operation constitutes a nonconforming use was based upon insufficient evidence and is therefore arbitrary, capricious, and clearly erroneous. See R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 (1988 Reenactment) §§ 45-24-20 (5) and (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and authorizes reversal or modification on specified grounds.

Skorupa v. Zoning Board of Review, City of Cranston, 89-5009 (1992) · filed 1992-08-19(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits reversal or modification only when substantial rights were prejudiced by specified errors.

Johnston v. Zoning Bd. of Rev., Town of S. Kingstown, 89-389 (1993) · filed 1993-01-19(d)

The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decision of the Board is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which provides as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) sets the Superior Court's standard and remedies for reviewing a zoning board decision.

McCabe v. Ball, 89-470 (1993) · filed 1993-02-15(d)

After review of the entire record, this Court finds that the decision of the board is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record, is not arbitrary or capricious, and is not characterized by any abuse of the board's discretion. Accordingly, the decision of the board must be and hereby is affirmed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and bars substituting the court's judgment for the board's factual determinations.

Steenburgh v. Charlestown Zoning Board of Review, 90-0339 (1993) · filed 1993-03-30(d)

In performing its judicial duties as prescribed in § 45-24-20 , this Superior Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits factual reweighing by the Superior Court and permits specified remedies when a zoning board decision prejudices substantial rights.

Motoring Serv. Tech. Training v. City of E. Providence, 90-4513 (1993) · filed 1993-04-28(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides: ... In reviewing a zoning board decision, the Superior Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board, but rather, will examine the whole record to determine the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions to specified legal and evidentiary errors and permits reversal or remand when substantial rights are prejudiced.

Merola v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of North Prov., 91-2861 (1993) · filed 1993-07-14(d)

As a result, this Court's review is limited in scope to, among other things, a determination of whether the board's decision was in compliance with procedural and substantive law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits the court's review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Fuller v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the Town of Coventry, 89-0315 (1991) · filed 1991-01-16(d)

This Court's standard of review when considering an appeal from a zoning board's decision is bound by the strictures of R.I.G.L. 45-24-20 (d). ... Accordingly, given that the Board failed to state sufficient findings of fact and reasons for its decision, this Court is constrained to follow the directive of our Supreme Court in Rommel and remand this matter to the Board for the purpose of making such findings based on the evidence presented to it on October 4, 1989.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(a) requires an appeal from a zoning board decision to be filed in Superior Court within twenty days after the decision is filed.

Mauricio v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1991-05-16(a)

In the case at bar the statute requires that the persons who seek review of a decision of a zoning board must file a complaint in the Superior Court for the county in which the municipality is situated within twenty days after the decision of the zoning board has been filed. This statute is plain and unambiguous. It does not give any room for interpretation. It must be complied with in accordance with its terms. These terms require a filing within twenty days, not a mailing or a notice to opposing counsel. This filing was clearly not accomplished within the time limit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of a zoning board decision and permits reversal when the decision is clearly erroneous or unsupported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

Baldwin v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of Barrington, 90-7988 (1991) · filed 1991-08-02(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by Rhode Island General Laws 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. ... After review, this court finds that the decision of the Board is not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record and is clearly erroneous. For the reasons herein above set out, the November 1990 decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Barrington is hereby reversed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Manfredi v. Town of Johnston Zoning Board of Review, 91-3497 (1992) · filed 1992-03-27(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: ... After review of the entire record, this Court finds that the Board's decision denying appellant a variance is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) requires substantial prejudice to the appellant's rights before a court may reverse, modify, or remand a zoning board decision.

Daravikchay v. City of Cranston Zoning Board of Review, 89-4663 (1992) · filed 1992-05-18(d)

While this Court recognizes that the Board applied an improper standard when it decided Plaintiff's application, reversal or modification of the Board's decision, or a remand for further proceedings, is not warranted under the provisions of R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d). Said section unambiguously requires a finding by the court that substantial rights of the party have been prejudiced in order to warrant a reversal, modification, or remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Goodwin Restaurant, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Review, 91-0257 (1992) · filed 1992-07-31(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) bars the court from substituting its judgment for the zoning board's factual judgment and permits reversal when the board's decision is clearly erroneous.

Paquette v. Town of Coventry Zoning Board of Review, 90-921 (1992) · filed 1992-09-16(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) governs Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and limits substitution of the court's judgment for the board's factual judgment.

Kashmanian v. City of Providence, 90-1036 (1992) · filed 1992-11-23(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision, the Superior Court may neither substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board nor examine the weight of the evidence. ... After a review of the whole record, the Court finds that the Board's decision is supported by reliable, substantial and probative evidence contained in the record and does not prejudice the rights of the appellants.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Spirito v. Carlson, 91-7951 (1992) · filed 1992-12-21(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (D), which provides in pertinent part as follows: ... This Court's viewing of the whole record reveals that the decision of the zoning board was not supported by substantial evidence, an examination of which follows.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d)(2) permits reversal or modification when a zoning board exceeds the authority granted by statute or ordinance.

Brochu v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of Westerly, 91-0731 (1993) · filed 1993-02-08(d)(2)

Therefore, the Board acted, "in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance." R.I.G.L. § 45-24-20 (d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) directs the Superior Court how to review zoning board decisions, including limits on reweighing evidence and grounds for reversal or modification.

Rossetti v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of Cumberland, 90-5403 (1993) · filed 1993-02-09(d)

The Superior Court's review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which states in pertinent part: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court. (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) In violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) gives the Superior Court appellate jurisdiction over zoning board decisions and limits review to the listed legal and evidentiary errors.

Vendettuoli v. Dimuro, 91-4520 (1993) · filed 1993-04-22(d)

Pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 45-24-20 (d), the Superior Court possesses appellate jurisdiction to review zoning board decisions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) bars substituting judgment on facts but permits affirming, remanding, reversing, or modifying a zoning board decision for specified legal or evidentiary errors.

Nicholas v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of Johnston, 91-6209 (1993) · filed 1993-06-30(d)

45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. ... After reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that the decision of the Zoning Board was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Johnston Zoning Board of Review is hereby reversed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and authorizes affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Quattrucci v. Zoning Board of Review, City of E. Prov., 92-5313 (1993) · filed 1993-07-08(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) bars the Superior Court from reweighing facts and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Brophy v. Asselin, 89-3100 (1994) · filed 1994-04-06(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which provides: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) directs the Superior Court to review zoning board decisions without reweighing facts and permits reversal or modification for specified errors that prejudice substantial rights.

Mill Development Co. v. Curtin, 89-5875 (1992) · filed 1992-01-15(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by Rhode Island General Laws 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part: ... In reviewing a zoning board decision, the Superior Court ". . . is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board if it can conscientiously find that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the whole record." ... After considering the whole record, this Court finds that the Board's decision is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. The October 12, 1989 decision of the Board, therefore, is not clearly erroneous and is hereby affirmed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of a zoning board decision and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification only on specified grounds.

McCrory v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of N. Kingstown, 89-0388 (1994) · filed 1994-03-02(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which provides: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(f) requires a zoning board decision to be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record.

Village House Convalescent Home v. Members Zoning Bd., Nc910127 (1992) · filed 1992-05-18(f)

The board's finding #19, which is based upon that testimony, is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record (R.I.G.L. 1956 § 45-24-20 (f) as amended) and is affected by error of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits the Superior Court's review of zoning board decisions and permits reversal or modification on specified grounds.

Johnson Wales Univ. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, Cranston, 91-4123 (1992) · filed 1992-06-08(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions to specified legal and evidentiary errors and bars substituting its judgment on factual weight.

Xyz Realty Corporation v. Doire, 91-7953 (1992) · filed 1992-12-02(d)

The jurisdiction of this court to review the decision of the board is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which provides as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... In reviewing a zoning board decision the Superior Court ". . . is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board if it can conscientiously find that the boards decision was supported by substantial evidence in the whole record." Apostolou v. Genovesi; 120 R.I. 501 , 388 A.2d 821 (1978). ... Accordingly, the decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Cumberland is affirmed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 requires the reviewing court to defer to the zoning board on factual weight and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification only on specified grounds.

Lasalle v. Zoning and Platting Board of Review, 90-0728 (1993) · filed 1993-02-15(d)

The standard of review which this Superior Court must apply to appeals of decisions of local zoning boards is set forth in G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 , as amended. That section reads as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court [Repealed effective July 1, 1993.] (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of a zoning board decision and permits reversal or modification only on specified grounds, while barring substitution of the court's judgment on factual weight.

Shabo v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Johnston, 91-1360 (1993) · filed 1993-04-23(d)

The Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) 45-24-20 (d), which provides as follows: ... The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... After reviewing the record before it, this Court finds that the decision of the zoning board was not arbitrary or capricious or affected by error of law and is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(b) requires a party to seek leave to present additional evidence before the superior court hearing and show materiality and good reasons, while subsection (c) permits the court to allow necessary evidence in open court.

Vendettuoli v. Dimuro, 91-4520 (1993) · filed 1993-07-15(b), (c)

Pursuant to § 45-24-20 (b), a party's application to present additional evidence before the zoning board must be made ". . . before the date set for hearing in the superior court. . . ." Furthermore, pursuant to same statute, leave to present such evidence is granted when ". . . it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for the failure to present it at the hearing before the board. " (Emphasis added). Section 45-24-20 (c) further provides that if in its initial consideration of the record of the appeal from the zoning board, it appears to the court that additional evidence is necessary, it ". . . may allow any party to the appeal to present evidence in open court, which evidence along with the record shall constitute the record upon which the determination of the court shall be made."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Gabrikle v. Rocchio, 93-1578 (1994) · filed 1994-01-21(d)

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits the Superior Court's review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds.

Izzo v. Sullivan, 90-6731 (1994) · filed 1994-04-20(d)

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits judicial review of a zoning board decision and requires affirmance when substantial evidence supports the board's findings.

Burns v. Members Newport Zoning Board of Review, Nc910587 (1992) · filed 1992-06-11

The Court is satisfied there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board's finding #8. Apostolou v. Genovesi, 120 R.I. 501 . Plaintiffs' appeal is denied and dismissed, the decision of the board is affirmed, and the clerk will forthwith enter judgment for defendants for costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits the Superior Court's review of a zoning board decision to the statutory grounds stated there and bars substituting its judgment for the board's factual findings.

Sarli v. Town of Barrington Zoning Board, 91-6684 (1992) · filed 1992-06-22(d)

Under the statute governing the Superior Court's review of a zoning board decision, as amended, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board when "substantial" evidence on the whole record supports the board's findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 limits judicial review of a zoning board decision by barring the court from weighing evidence or substituting its judgment for the board's.

Anolik v. Members Newport Zoning Board of Review, Nc920224 (1993) · filed 1993-02-11

Plaintiff appeals under R.I.G.L. 1956 § 45-24-20 as amended from a decision of the Newport Zoning Board of Review which denied plaintiff's appeal from a decision of the Newport Historic District Commission. ... On review here, the Court cannot weigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits reversal or modification for specified errors prejudicing substantial rights.

D'Abbraccio v. Zoning Bd. of Review, City of Cranston, Pc93-2840 (1994) · filed 1994-05-05(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: ... The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c) limits the court's review to the record of the hearing before the zoning board.

Sako v. Delsesto, 93-5945 (1994) · filed 1994-05-11(c)

In making its decision, the court is limited by R.I.G.L. § 45-24-20 (c) to a review of "the record of the hearing before the zoning board."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) bars the Superior Court from substituting its judgment for the zoning board's factual judgment and permits reversal when the decision lacks substantial evidentiary support.

Star Enter. v. Zoning Board of Review, Town of Lincoln, 91-8560 (1994) · filed 1994-05-17(d)

When reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 , which provides in pertinent part as follows: 45-24-20 . Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits judicial review of zoning board decisions and permits reversal or modification when substantial rights are prejudiced by specified errors.

Passarelli v. Pratt, 93-894 (1994) · filed 1994-06-20(d)

Appeals of zoning board decisions are governed by R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-20 , which provides: (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 requires the reviewing court to defer to the zoning board on factual weight and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds when substantial rights are prejudiced.

Shango Investments, Inc. v. Carlson, 93-0241 (1994) · filed 1994-09-28(D)

R.I.G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 as amended governs this Court's review of municipal zoning decisions and reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (D) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, interferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error or law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) permits the reviewing court to affirm, remand, reverse, or modify a zoning board decision when substantial rights were prejudiced by listed legal or procedural errors.

Haronian v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Town of Smithfield, 93-4364 (1995) · filed 1995-01-06(d)

The jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of the Board is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d) which provides as follows: ... "The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) in violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) in excess of the authority granted to the zoning board by statute or ordinance; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in view of the whole record; or (6) characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." ... Accordingly, after review of the record, this Court finds that the decision of the Zoning Board is in violation of ordinance provisions and affected by error of law, and that substantial rights of the plaintiff have thereby been prejudiced.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) governs Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits reversal or modification when specified errors prejudice substantial rights.

Kraftcheck v. Halliwell, 93-6116 (1996) · filed 1996-06-11(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides: ... "45-24-20. Appeals to Superior Court (D) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) In violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board of review by statute or ordinance; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." ... Accordingly, after reviewing the entire record, this Court finds that the decision of the North Smithfield Zoning Board was based on the substantial evidence before it. This Court further finds that the Board's decision is not clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, substantial evidence contained in the record and substantial rights of the plaintiff have not been prejudiced. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is affirmed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions and permits affirmance, remand, reversal, or modification on specified grounds without substituting the court's judgment on factual weight.

Difanti v. Dimuro, 91-4578 (1994) · filed 1994-07-07(d)

The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) sets the Superior Court’s standard and limits when it may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify a zoning board decision.

Florio v. the Zoning Board of Review, Town of Johnston, 93-5898 (1996) · filed 1996-07-16(d)

Superior Court review of a zoning board decision is controlled by G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides: "45-24-20 Appeals to Superior Court (D) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board of review as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the zoning board of review or remand the case for further proceedings, or may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions which are: (1) In violation of constitutional, statutory or ordinance provisions; (2) In excess of the authority granted to the zoning board of review by statute or ordinance; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." When reviewing a decision of a zoning board, a justice of the Superior Court may not substitute his or her judgment for that of the zoning board if he or she conscientiously finds that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits an aggrieved person to appeal a zoning board decision to Superior Court and establishes the court's scope of review.

Foisy v. Goulet, 94-3316 (1994) · filed 1994-12-01(d)

As noted above, R.I.G.L. § 45-24-20 delineates this Court's scope of review as well as the right of "any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the board [to] appeal to the superior court for review of said board's decision."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) limits Superior Court review of zoning board decisions by barring substitution of judgment on factual weight and permitting relief for specified errors.

Church of St. Joseph of Geneva v. Providence Zoning Bd., 92-5690 (1995) · filed 1995-01-12(d)

The Superior Court review of a Zoning Board decision is controlled by Rhode Island General Laws 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-24-20(d), which provides in pertinent part: 45-24-20. Appeals to Superior Court (d) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 sets the scope of Superior Court review of zoning board decisions, including review for substantial evidence supporting the board’s findings.

Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. East Providence Zoning Board of Review · filed 1982-04-28

We find no merit in this contention as the trial justice correctly recited the scope of review, as defined by G.L. 1956 (1980 Reenactment) § 45-24-20. He evaluated the evidence and specifically found that “the record contains substantial evidence to support the votes of the two dissenting Board members.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 governs Superior Court review of municipal zoning board decisions, not a town or city council’s legislative zoning decisions.

Kilduff Bros. Builders v. Town Council of the Johnston · filed 1982-07-08

At oral argument it was conceded that the trial justice erred in relying on § 45-24-20 because that section governs the Superior Court’s review of appeals from decisions made by the various municipal zoning boards rather than the legislative acts of a town or city council.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits reversal of a zoning board decision when substantial evidence does not support the board’s findings.

Serpa v. Members Zoning Bd. of Review, City of Newport, Nc900061 (1991) · filed 1991-04-04

Having in mind that the Court is not a super-zoning board, that it may not pass upon the weight of the evidence, and that a decision cannot be overturned if there is substantial evidence to support it, Apostolou v. Genovesi, 120 R.I. 501 , the Court has considered the record bearing on the points. ... The Court is satisfied that there was no substantial evidence before the board to support its findings #5 and #6. The decision appealed from is reversed and the clerk will forthwith enter judgment for plaintiffs for costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) requires the Superior Court to uphold a zoning board’s factual decision when substantial evidence supports it.

Slattery v. Doire, 88-2671 (1991) · filed 1991-11-12(d)

After review of the entire record, this Court finds that the Board's decision denying plaintiff a variance is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20(d) bars the Superior Court from reweighing the evidence when reviewing a zoning board decision and permits affirmance when the decision has substantial evidentiary support.

Matos v. Town of Bristol Zoning Board of Review, 91-5242 (1992) · filed 1992-06-17(d)

In reviewing a zoning board decision this Court is constrained by R.I.G.L. 1956 (1988 Reenactment) § 45-24-20 (d), which provides in pertinent part as follows: ... The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning board as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. ... For the reasons herein above set out this Court finds that the Board's July 9, 1991, decision granting defendant a variance was supported by reliable, competent, and probative evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits an appeal by a property owner whose property would naturally be adversely affected and requires facts establishing aggrievement to be pleaded when absent from the record.

D'ALMEIDA v. Sheldon Realty Co. · filed 1969-04-03

In the instant case nothing is shown either by way of evidence introduced at the hearing or by the allegations of the petition filed under §45-24-20 that any property owned by petitioner would in any manner be adversely affected by the grant of the variance sought by Sheldon. While the statute does not mandate in express terms that the petitioner set out in his petition jurisdictional facts, it does, in our opinion, clearly imply that if facts establishing aggrievement do not appear in the record, the petitioner set such facts out in the petition. ... It being then our view that when the record does not set forth facts establishing aggrievement and such facts are not alleged in the petition, other than to allege ownership of land within the municipality, the petition contains insufficient allegations to establish aggrievement.

Law changed since The 1969 amendment moved initial review to Superior Court; P.L. 1991, ch. 307, § 1 repealed § 45-24-20 effective July 1, 1993.

Section 45-24-20 permits a person aggrieved by a zoning board decision to petition the supreme court for review.

DiIorio v. Zoning Bd. of E. Providence · filed 1969-04-14

We have held that one is aggrieved within the contemplation of this statute when he is the owner of property the use of which would naturally be affected adversely by a decision granting an exception or variance.

Law changed since P.L. 1991, ch. 307, § 1 repealed § 45-24-20 effective July 1, 1993; this rule applies only to proceedings governed by the former section.

Section 45-24-20 allows a person aggrieved by a zoning board decision to appeal to the Superior Court, and the city solicitor qualifies as aggrieved when the public interest is affected.

City of East Providence v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1972-05-19

We hold, therefore, that in the circumstances of this case the city solicitor of East Providence was an “aggrieved” person within §45-24-20, as amended, and therefore had standing to appeal the zoning board’s decision in this case to the Superior Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits meaningful judicial review of zoning board decisions without remand for a new hearing when the existing record is sufficient.

Giunta v. Zoning Bd. of Review of the City of Newport, Nc890005 (1991) · filed 1991-04-25

The Court is satisfied, upon reading of the statements and comments of board members in both transcripts, 3 that review here can be and is meaningful.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 authorizes the court to take evidence when deciding a zoning board appeal if the testimony is necessary for a proper disposition.

Fryzel v. Zoning Board of Review · filed 1969-05-07

This court is authorized by statute to take evidence when hearing and determining an appeal from a zoning board of review when it appears to this court that the testimony is necessary to a proper disposition of the matter. G. L. 1956, §45-24-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 permits petitioners appealing a zoning board decision to seek leave to present additional evidence before the board.

Guiberson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence · filed 1973-08-17

In the circumstances we believe the records should be returned to the Superior Court with directions that that court grant petitioners’ motion under §45-24-20 to present additional evidence before the board relating to the question of the effect of. the proposed development on the Newport sewer system and for a finding by the board on that question.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 45-24-20 generally allows an aggrieved person to appeal a zoning board decision to Superior Court, but public utility zoning appeals must go to the Public Utilities Commission.

Merciol v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company · filed 1972-05-23

The specific language of §39-1-30 modifies the more general language of §45-24-20, as amended. We are satisfied that the Legislature by the enactment of §39-1-30 intended to create an exception to the general appellate jurisdiction given to the Superior Court by §45-24-20, as amended.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When the original applicant is joined after the zoning appeal period, the applicant may present evidence of prejudice and estoppel.

Mairorisi v. Zoning Bd. of Rev. of Providence · filed 1985-06-05

They are the timeliness of the appeal as it applies to Varone and the question of whether he was prejudiced by the lack of notice. ... In such circumstances, we believe that a remand to the Superior Court for an evi-dentiary hearing is appropriate, at which Varone should be permitted to present evidence on the issue of prejudice and on the question of whether the plaintiffs are es-topped from complaining against him after the expiration of the appeal period.