Dimitri v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, No. 679.

CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation200 A. 963
PartiesDIMITRI v. ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF WARWICK.
Decision Date20 July 1938
Docket NumberNo. 679.
200 A. 963

DIMITRI
v.
ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW OF CITY OF WARWICK.

No. 679.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 20, 1938.


Proceeding on writ of certiorari by Vincent Dimitri against the Zoning Board of Review of the City of Warwick, to review the record of the Board sustaining the action of the building inspector refusing a permit to erect a dwelling, in which Charlotte H. Rooks intervened.

Petition denied without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to institute proceedings de novo before the Board.

Philip S. Knauer, Philip S. Knauer, Jr., and Knauer & Fowler, all of Providence, for petitioner. Edward L. Godfrey, City Sol., of Providence, for respondents. Flynn & Leighton, of Providence, for intervener, Charlotte H. Rooks. Edwin J. Tetlow and Ralph M. Greenlaw, both of Providence, for adjoining landowners.

PER CURIAM.

&gt

This matter comes before this court on a petition for a writ of certiorari directed to the zoning board of review of the city of Warwick, seeking to bring before us for examination the record of said board in sustaining, after a hearing, the action of the building inspector of said Warwick in refusing to grant to the petitioner a building permit for the erection of a dwelling house, said petitioner having appealed to the zoning board of review from the ruling of said building inspector. On the petition the writ was ordered issued, and the record of the zoning board of review of Warwick in the premises is now before us.

We have examined such record in order to determine whether or not the decision of the board was correct. The record is brief. In our opinion it is incomplete and inadequate, and should be perfected. The petitioner herein is attacking the constitutionality of a portion of the zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick. Before we are required to pass upon such a question

we should be satisfied that all facts material to the determination of the issues raised appear upon the record and that the parties are properly before us.

The record in question shows that the petitioner stated to the zoning board of review, but not under oath, that he was the owner of a certain lot on a named plat, by reason of the purchase of said lot under an installment agreement made with the previous owner thereof. Neither the agreement nor the petitioner's deed was presented to the board of review or placed in evidence, although the record indicates that the petitioner stated that he would produce the agreement at a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Beckish v. Manafort
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 18, 1978
    ...by the decision of the state standards committee rejecting her application for a permit. Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963; accord, Packham v. Zoning Board of Review, 103 R.I. 467, 238 A.2d 387; Tripp v. Zoning Board of Review, 84 R.I. 262, 123 A.2d 144; Underhill v......
  • Staller v. Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, No. 1711
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • December 27, 1965
    ...of ownership in a parcel of land cannot be deprived of its beneficial use. Tripp followed Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963, and has since been followed in Parise v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 338, 168 A.2d 476, and Cranston Jewish Center v. Zoning Board of Rev......
  • Shalvey v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, No. 1543
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • May 25, 1965
    ...raised, and hence with respect to him ownership was without materiality in the cause. See Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963. In short, the posture in which this case is presented to this court is such that the question of whether Shackleton was entitled as a matter ......
  • Packham v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Cranston, No. 145-M
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • February 21, 1968
    ...applicant was in fact the owner of the land. We also considered an aspect of this issue in Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963. However, in that case we established an appellate rule. There an [103 R.I. 471] applicant who had been denied a permit appealed to this cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Beckish v. Manafort
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 18, 1978
    ...by the decision of the state standards committee rejecting her application for a permit. Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963; accord, Packham v. Zoning Board of Review, 103 R.I. 467, 238 A.2d 387; Tripp v. Zoning Board of Review, 84 R.I. 262, 123 A.2d 144; Underhill v......
  • Staller v. Cranston Zoning Bd. of Review, No. 1711
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • December 27, 1965
    ...of ownership in a parcel of land cannot be deprived of its beneficial use. Tripp followed Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963, and has since been followed in Parise v. Zoning Board of Review, 92 R.I. 338, 168 A.2d 476, and Cranston Jewish Center v. Zoning Board of Rev......
  • Shalvey v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Warwick, No. 1543
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • May 25, 1965
    ...raised, and hence with respect to him ownership was without materiality in the cause. See Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963. In short, the posture in which this case is presented to this court is such that the question of whether Shackleton was entitled as a matter ......
  • Packham v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Cranston, No. 145-M
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • February 21, 1968
    ...applicant was in fact the owner of the land. We also considered an aspect of this issue in Dimitri v. Zoning Board of Review, 61 R.I. 325, 200 A. 963. However, in that case we established an appellate rule. There an [103 R.I. 471] applicant who had been denied a permit appealed to this cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT