Romano v. Daneker

5 Citing cases

  1. Ramsay v. Sarkas

    110 R.I. 590 (R.I. 1972)   Cited 9 times
    In Ramsay, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, who was joined by Mr. Justice Paolino, authored the plurality opinion; Mr. Justice Powers wrote a concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Joslin, with whom Mr. Justice Kelleher joined, concurred in part and dissented in part.

    We held in Reynolds that this court has "* * * allowed a local board to petition for certiorari to review a decision of the administrator where the board alleged in substance that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by unlawfully invading theirs. Romano v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 79; Board of License Comm'rs v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 101." Board of Police Comm'rs v. Reynolds, supra, at 177, 133 A.2d at 741.

  2. City of Pawtucket v. R.I. Dept. of Business Regulations

    No. 96-2701 (R.I. Super. Sep. 29, 1997)

    The Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the issue of transferability of the pharmacist's Class A license. Romano v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 79, 79 A.2d 175 (1951). P.L. 1949, chapter 2373 § 3 abolished what was once referred to as a "limited" Class A license.

  3. Bd. of Police Comm'rs v. Reynolds

    86 R.I. 172 (R.I. 1957)   Cited 26 times

    We have heretofore allowed a local board to petition for certiorari to review a decision of the administrator where the board alleged in substance that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by unlawfully invading theirs. Romano v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 79; Board of License Comm'rs v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 101. In each of those cases we issued the writ of certiorari because the allegations in the petition raised important questions affecting the local administration of the liquor control law.

  4. Barrington Liquors, Inc. v. City of East Providence, 91-4144 (1992)

    C.A. No. 91-4144 (R.I. Super. Mar. 20, 1992)

    Without ruling that the plaintiff waived any objection to the hearing officer's authority by appearing and submitting to his jurisdiction as if he were the administrator, the Court will nevertheless reach the legal issue raised in this litigation, since it is dispositive. Cf. Romano v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 79, 81, 79 A.2d 175 (1951). The facts are not in issue.

  5. DI RUZZO v. CORNER PIZZA, INC., 89-2915 (1991)

    C.A. No. 89-2915 (R.I. Super. Jun. 11, 1991)

    "A retailer's license, Class B shall be issued only to a duly licensed bona fide tavern keeper or victualer whose tavern or victualing house may be open for business and regularly patronized at least from nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. to seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. . . ." There was absolutely no evidence in the record before the Liquor Control Administrator that permitted her to conclude that Corner Pizza, Inc. was open for business and regularly patronized at least from nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. Accordingly, Corner Pizza, Inc. was not qualified for the Class B license pursuant to the specific requirement of § 3-7-7 R.I.G.L. The Liquor Control Administrator had no authority to order a local liquor licensing board to issue a liquor license in contravention of state law.Romano v. Daneker, 78 R.I. 79, 83 (1951). For the reasons hereinabove set out, the decision of the Liquor Control Administrator dated May 3, 1989 is reversed.