Opinion ID: 1039076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court has held that “[a] decision to grant or deny declaratory or injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion or the trial justice committed an error of law.” - 11 - Hagenberg v. Avedisian, 879 A.2d 436, 441 (R.I. 2005) (citing DiDonato v. Kennedy, 822 A.2d 179, 181 (R.I. 2003)). We also have held that “[a]n agreed statement of facts operates to submit a controversy for consideration when both parties have agreed upon the ultimate facts.” Hagenberg, 879 A.2d at 441 (quoting Randall v. Norberg, 121 R.I. 714, 717, 403 A.2d 240, 242 (1979). In such a case, “our scope of review of the trial justice’s decision is narrowly defined.” Id. (quoting Randall, 121 R.I. at 717, 403 A.2d at 242). Thus, “the court has no independent fact-finding function and its role is limited to applying the law to the agreed-upon facts.” Id. (quoting Randall, 121 R.I. at 717-18, 403 A.2d at 242). Additionally, we have held that “whether a contract is clear and unambiguous is a question of law.” Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spino Brothers, Inc., 11 A.3d 645, 648 (R.I. 2011) (citing Irene Realty Corp. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, 973 A.2d 1118, 1122 (R.I. 2009)). Furthermore, after “a contract is determined to be clear and unambiguous, then ‘the meaning of its terms constitute a question of law for the court   .’” Young v. Warwick Rollermagic Skating Center, Inc., 973 A.2d 553, 558 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Cassidy v. Springfield Life Insurance Co., 106 R.I. 615, 619, 262 A.2d 378, 380 (1970)). “This Court reviews a trial justice’s conclusions on questions of law de novo.” Beacon Mutual Insurance Co., 11 A.3d at 649 (citing International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. City of East Providence, 989 A.2d 106, 108 (R.I. 2010)). “Accordingly, we review a trial justice’s interpretation of a contract de novo.” Id. (citing Irene Realty Corp., 973 A.2d at 1122). Likewise, this Court reviews issues of statutory interpretation de novo. Reynolds v. Town of Jamestown, 45 A.3d 537, 541 (R.I. 2012). “When a statute is clear and unambiguous we are bound to ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning of the words of the statute and our inquiry is at - 12 - an end.” Town of Burrillville v. Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC, 950 A.2d 435, 445 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Unistrut Corp. v. State Department of Labor and Training, 922 A.2d 93, 98 (R.I. 2007)). “However, when a statute is susceptible of more than one meaning, we employ our wellestablished maxims of statutory construction in an effort to glean the intent of the Legislature.” Id. (quoting Unistrut Corp., 922 A.2d at 98-99.). B