Barber v. Town of North Kingstown

368 A.2d 1258, 117 R.I. 966, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1746
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Barber v. Town of North Kingstown. Read the opinion of the Court — 118 R.I. 169
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided January 6, 1977·No. M. P. No. 76-341·Published

Opinion

Plaintiffs have moved for a reconsidera-

tion of the vacation of the stay in this case on the basis of Tantimonaco v. Zoning Board of Johnston, 102 R.I. 594, 232 [967]*967A2d 385 (1967). Since that case is not applicable and the applicant for zoning change in this case is proceeding at its own risk, the motion for reconsideration is denied. This case is specially assigned to the calendar for February 11, 1977 for oral argument, at 9:30 a.m.

Hanson, Curran, Bowen & Parks, A. Lauriston Parks, for petitioners. Bernard F. McSally, Town Solicitor, Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd. Francis J. Boyle (amicus curiae), Paul P. Pederzani, Jr. (amicus curiae), for respondents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barber v. Town of North Kingstown, 368 A.2d 1258, 117 R.I. 966, 1977 R.I. LEXIS 1746 (R.I. 1977).

368 A.2d 1258 (Barber v. Town of North Kingstown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tantimonaco v. ZONING BD. OF JOHNSTON
232 A.2d 385 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1967)