Opinion ID: 2823214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Although we have described Rhode Island precedent concerning motions for intervention as “sparse,” Tonetti, 943 A.2d at 1073; Credit Union Central Falls v. Groff, 871 A.2d 364, 367 (R.I. 2005), we have nonetheless indicated with respect to intervention as of right that “[t]his Court reviews a trial justice’s grant of a motion to intervene for abuse of discretion, reversing only if the justice failed to apply the standards set forth in Rule 24(a)(2), or otherwise committed clear error.” Town of Coventry v. Baird Properties, LLC, 13 A.3d 614, 619 (R.I. 2011); see also Marteg Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of Warwick, 425 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I. 1981) (“[I]t is well settled that the determination of timeliness [of an application for intervention] is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial justice.”). Similarly, we have also utilized the abuse of discretion standard of review in the context of Rule 24(b)(2)—viz., permissive intervention. See Town of Smithfield v. Fanning, 602 A.2d 939, 943-44 (R.I. 1992) (holding that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by declining to grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)). -7- III