Opinion ID: 1991968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ordered and adjudged

Text: That the suspension of the license and registration of the Plaintiff    was in violation of `due process' and `equal protection' provisions of the Constitution of the United States and that the Defendant is permanently enjoined from suspending or revoking the operator's license and motor vehicle registration of the Plaintiff. The petitioner claims that the District Court improperly exceeded its limited scope of review in agency appeals by reversing Fitzpatrick's suspension. Alternatively, petitioner argues, the District Court incorrectly concluded that the department's suspension action violated Fitzpatrick's due-process and equal-protection rights under the United States Constitution. We are unable to reach the merits of the petitioner's contentions. The District Court's decision, although entirely appropriate under the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure, is devoid of any supportive reasoning. Essentially the District Court failed to articulate adequately the factual foundations and legal reasoning underlying its decision, making intelligent appellate review impossible. See generally Eagle Electric Co. v. Raymond Construction Co., 420 A.2d 60 (R.I. 1980) (remand directing Superior Court to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law); American Insurance Co. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 116 R.I. 518, 359 A.2d 37 (1976) (conclusional rather than factual trial-court decision remanded for rehearing). In essence, there is no reviewable record upon which this court may act. For this reason the case is remanded to the District Court for a rehearing with directions that the trial justice who heard the case create a record and state the factual and legal determinations supportive of his decision.