Opinion ID: 1979960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Pursuant to § 45-23-71 judicial review of board decisions is not de novo. Kirby v. Planning Board of Review of Middletown, 634 A.2d 285, 290 (R.I.1993). The statute authorizes the Superior Court to review such decisions utilizing the `traditional judicial review' standard that is applied in administrative-agency actions. Id. Therefore, the Superior Court does not consider the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or make its own findings of fact. Id. ; Lett v. Caromile, 510 A.2d 958, 960 (R.I.1986). Rather, [i]ts review is confined to a search of the record to ascertain whether the board's decision rests upon `competent evidence' or is affected by an error of law. Kirby, 634 A.2d at 290. When this [C]ourt reviews such an appellate decision of the Superior Court, the scope of our review is confined to determining whether the trial justice exceeded his or her authority under § 45-23-[71]. Id. ; see Sawyer v. Cozzolino, 595 A.2d 242, 245 (R.I.1991). We shall reverse a lower court judgment on appeal from a planning board of review if the trial justice misapplied the law, misconceived or overlooked material evidence, or made findings that were clearly wrong. Kirby, 634 A.2d at 290 (quoting Brum v. Conley, 572 A.2d 1332, 1335 (R.I.1990)); see Taylor v. Marshall, 119 R.I. 171, 178, 376 A.2d 712, 716 (1977). After reviewing the trial justice's decision and the record of the proceedings before the board of appeals, we are of the opinion that the trial justice committed no error.