concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I completely agree with the majority with respect to its holding on the standing of the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island.
However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that there was an incipient dedication of the wharves in question to public use. I do so because I believe that the majority misinterprets the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and substitutes its judgment for that of the trial justice in a manner contrary to our well-settled standard of review.
As an initial matter, I have reservations about the holding of the majority that the trial justice erred because he did not make a specific finding that the First Ebbs Plat was ambiguous before he considered parol evidence in determining the intent of the trustees regarding the land at issue in this case. In my view, the entire case was litigated on the basis of the ambiguity of the First Ebbs Plat, and both parties presented an abundance of parol evidence to lend circumstantial support to their conflicting interpretations of that original subdivision plat and the intent of the trustees. Indeed, at no point in the lengthy trial before the Superior Court did either party argue that the Ebbs Plat was not ambiguous, nor did either party object to the introduction of parol evidence at any time before the trial justice or on appeal to this Court. To fault the trial justice for failing to make a specific finding on what was a nonissue at trial, and about which neither party seeks review before this Court, seems, to me, to be a victory of form over substance. .
Turning to the merits of the case, I most respectfully disagree with the majority’s summation of the law governing dedicatory intent, especially as it applies to the unique circumstances presented in this case. This Court has steadfastly adhered to the principle that “[djedication of private property to the public is * * * an exceptional and *1043unusual method by which a landowner passes to another an interest in [land].” Donnelly v. Cowsill, 716 A.2d 742, 747 (R.I.1998) (quoting Robidoux v. Pelletier, 120 R.I. 425, 438, 391 A.2d 1150, 1154 (1978)); see also Volpe v. Marina Parks, Inc., 101 R.I. 80, 86, 220 A.2d 525, 529 (1966). Our case law provides a cautious, yet very clear framework of the principles governing public dedication of land in this jurisdiction. In Rhode Island, the general rule is that “land delineated as streets and roads on a subdivision map becomes public property upon the approval of [the subdivision arrangement by] the plan commission.” Donnelly, 716 A.2d at 747 (citing Town of Bristol v. Castle Construction Co., 100 R.I. 135, 139, 211 A.2d 627, 629 (1965)). “In order for this general rule to apply, however, the land [in question] must be clearly marked as a road or a street on the subdivision map.” Id. When, as in this case, the land is not so marked, the property in question still may be considered public if the proponent can demonstrate that it was “dedicated by its owner as a street or a road and that the public has accepted the dedication.” Id. (citing Robidoux, 120 R.I. at 433, 391 A.2d at 1154; Vallone v. City of Cranston, 97 R.I. 248, 255, 197 A.2d 310, 314 (1964)). “In order for there to be an effective dedication, two elements must exist: (1) a manifest intent by the landowner to dedicate the land in question, called an incipient dedication or offer to dedicate; and (2) an acceptance by the public either by public use or by official action to accept the same on behalf of the municipality.” Robidoux, 120 R.I. at 433, 391 A.2d at 1154. However, we have cautioned that a simple “line or mark on a plat or delineation of a way or street for boundary purposes is insufficient to establish the owner’s intent to offer the property for [public] dedication.” Donnelly, 716 A.2d at 747-48.
To determine the intent of a landowner in cases in which the incipient dedication of a parcel of land is unclear or when “the road or way appears to be delineated for boundary purposes only,” Donnelly, 716 A.2d at 748, it is the task of the trial justice, as fact-finder, to interpret the meaning of the disputed subdivision, plat, or other diagram by a “careful scrutiny of all lines, figures, and letters that appear on the map as well as whatever pertinent evidence may be adduced by the litigants.” Robidoux, 120 R.I. at 434, 391 A.2d at 1155. In such cases, “[e]ach element of the plat is to be given a meaning, and no part can be considered superfluous.” Id. However, under no circumstances may the intent to dedicate be lightly presumed by the trial justice. Volpe, 101 R.I. at 86, 220 A.2d at 529 (citing Vallone, 97 R.I. at 254, 197 A.2d at 314).
Although the majority properly cites the general rule in Rhode Island that land delineated as streets and roads on a subdivision map becomes public property upon the approval of the subdivision arrangement by the plan commission, Donnelly, 716 A.2d at 747 (citing Town of Bristol, 100 R.I. at 139, 211 A.2d at 629), the majority overlooks our previous holdings indicating that this “presumptive” rule applies only when the land in question is “clearly marked as a road or a street” on the subdivision map. Id. (Emphasis added.) When, as in this case, the land is not so marked, the property in question may be considered public only if the proponent can demonstrate that it was “dedicated by its owner as a street or a road and that the public has accepted the dedication.” Id. (citing Robidoux, 120 R.I. at 433, 391 A.2d at 1154; Vallone, 97 R.I. at 255, 197 A.2d at 314).8 Thus, our case law quite firmly *1044places the burden of proof in such cases upon the proponent of the public dedication.
In its decision, however, the majority appears to impose a presumption in favor of the public, dedication of the wharves at issue, even though the Ebbs Plat delineates no streets, roads, or other commonly recognized rights of way. Therefore, unless the majority intends to hold that a “wharf,” for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to a road, street, highway, or other right of way in the context of a subdivision plat, I am convinced that it has applied an improper presumption in favor of the proponent of the dedication to the facts of this case.
Because it was the burden of the state to establish public dedication in this case to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, it seems to me that the majority’s analysis of the trial justice’s decision frustrates the standard of review applicable to this case. Under that standard, this Court reviews the findings, judgments, orders, and other rulings of the lower court for mistakes of law, oversight of evidence, and sundry errors, without interposing its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal. Where a trial justice renders a finding on a question of fact, however, our review is especially constrained. We have held that “[w]hen reviewing findings of fact by a trial justice in a nonjury case, we apply a deferential standard of review.” McEntee v. Davis, 861 A.2d 459, 462 (R.I.2004) (quoting Vigneaux v. Carriere, 845 A.2d 304, 306 (R.I. 2004)). Accordingly, “[t]his Court will not disturb the findings of a trial justice sitting without a jury in a civil matter ‘unless such findings are clearly erroneous or unless the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence or unless the decision fails to do substantial justice between the parties.’ ” Paradis v. Heritage Loan and Investment Co., 701 A.2d 812, 813 (R.I.1997) (mem.) (quoting Harris v. Town of Lincoln, 668 A.2d 321, 326 (R.I. 1995)); see also Gross v. Glazier, 495 A.2d 672, 673 (R.I.1985); Lisi v. Marra, 424 A.2d 1052, 1055 (R.I.1981).9
Equally deferential is the standard of review that this Court employs when examining a trial justice’s factual determinations concerning dedicatory intent in the very context presented by this case. In *1045such circumstances, “inferential findings [of a trial justice], whether positive or negative, will be accepted by us as valid and binding so long as they are reasonable and logical and flow from the established facts. His findings will stand even though another equally reasonable set of inferences might be drawn from the evidence.” Robidoux, 120 R.I. at 435-36, 391 A.2d at 1155 (citing Jerry Brown Farm Association v. Kenyon, 119 R.I. 43, 51, 375 A.2d 964, 968 (1977); Providence and Worcester Co. v. Exxon Corp., 116 R.I. 470, 486, 359 A.2d 329, 338 (1976); Chase v. Blackstone Distributing Co., 110 R.I. 537, 544, 294 A.2d 392, 395-96 (1972)).
In this case, both parties presented voluminous evidence from which the trial justice was called upon to decipher and determine the legal status of North Commercial Wharf, Scott’s Wharf, and the unnamed connecting wharf. Included in this evidence were numerous deeds and other documentation in the chain of title for the lots indicated on the original Ebbs Plat, the “Indenture” agreement, and the three Ebbs Plats themselves. Both parties also presented expert testimony explaining and interpreting those documents and records. In addition, the court considered testimony and evidence relating to the tax status of the property at various times, the Newport Police and Fire Departments’ treatment of the property, the city’s maintenance of each disputed tract of land, and the condemnation award paid to the city by the state in connection with the mid-1970s construction of America’s Cup Boulevard. The parties also presented numerous written communications between Newport Oil Corporation and the city regarding the landowner’s request that the city abandon Scott’s Wharf, including memoranda of Newport’s director of redevelopment, city manager, fire chief, and chair of the Planning Board. Also proffered were numerous photographs and tourism guides intended to suggest the public nature of the entire Commercial Wharf area.
After reviewing the record in this case, I see no reason to disturb the Superior Court’s decision in this matter. As the trial justice noted, a review of the Ebbs Plat reveals no manifest intent on the part of the trustees or landowners to dedicate the wharves in question to the public. The areas are indeed labeled as “wharves,” not as “streets,” “roads,” or “ways.” There are no special delineations or other markings whatsoever from which to suspect an intended establishment of roadways or any other form of public thoroughfare. This analysis applies equally to the second and third Ebbs Plats, which provide no indication whatsoever that the three disputed tracts were intended or considered to be public. In addition, the language of the “reservation” clause in the 1923 “Indenture” agreement suggests that the right of way in the disputed areas was solely intended to be appurtenant to ownership of the individual lots in the subdivision. Lastly, the public dedication of South Commercial Wharf in 1923 strongly suggests that all the wharves on the Ebbs Plat, including the disputed tracts at issue in this case, previously were considered to be private by the trustees and Commercial Wharf landowners at the time of the subdivision. South Commercial Wharf is not distinguished in any manner from the other wharves on the Ebbs Plat; it is reasonable to conclude that each of those wharf areas shared a common designation prior to the public dedication of that southernmost wharf.10
I share the majority’s appreciation for the rich history of the area that is central to this case, as well as its prominent place among Newport’s commercial and tourist attractions. These concerns, however, cannot override the principles of law applicable to this case, nor the established methods by which this Court exercises its *1046duty to review the decisions of a trial justice. For all the above reasons, and with the deepest appreciation for the analysis of the majority, I respectfully dissent from that part of the holding establishing an incipient dedication,
[[Image here]]
*1047[[Image here]]
*1048[[Image here]]
. The majority concludes that "[a]fter careful examination of the First Ebbs Plat, we glean *1044no indication that the trustees intended the roads to be private rights-of-way. There are no lines, markings, or writings on the plat or any language in the deeds that suggest anything other than an incipient dedication and acceptance of the offer by the public through over eight decades of continuous use.” However, it is the proponent of the incipient dedication, not the landowner, who bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to establish an incipient dedication. See 23 Am.Jur.2d Dedication § 72 at 59 (2002) ("When an implied dedication is claimed, the facts relied upon must be such as to clearly indicate a purpose on the part of the owner to abandon his or her personal dominion over the property and to devote it to a definite public use. Proof of intention on the part of the dedicator, and proof of acceptance by the public must be clear and unambiguous.”).
. See also School Committee of North Providence v. North Providence Federation of Teachers, Local 920, 468 A.2d 272, 275 (R.I.1983) ("Factual disputes are the sole province of the finder of fact,” and a review by the Supreme Court of the manner in which they are resolved is "limited to an examination of the record as it stands”); Rodrigues v. Santos, 466 A.2d 306, 309 (R.I.1983) (Supreme Court does not, on appeal, consider what evidence should have been accepted and what should have been rejected); Morinville v. Morinville, 116 R.I. 507, 516, 359 A.2d 48, 54 (1976) ("[FJactual disputes are to be resolved by the jury, not by an appellate court whose examination is limited to review of the cold record.”); Fournier v. Ward, 111 R.I. 467, 472, 306 A.2d 802, 805 (1973) (weighing evidence and assessing credibility of the witnesses are the functions of the trial court, not the appellate court).
. In my opinion, the trial justice did err when he concluded that there was "a total lack of evidence of public acceptance” of the wharves at issue in this case. This error is not material to my analysis, however, because public acceptance is not critical in incipient dedication cases until a dedicatory intent first has been established by satisfactory proof.