Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel affirming the denial of a motion for relief of judgment for the violation of R.I.G.L. § 31-20-12 (stopping for school bus required). Section 31-20-12 requires that a motorist stop for a school bus transporting children while flashing lights are engaged unless the motorist and bus are traveling in opposite lanes and separated by a median. In support of the motion for relief of judgment the defendant argued that he had newly discovered evidence that the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) planned to place a median strip at the site of the violation. He admitted, however, that the median was not there at the time he was cited. The District Court held that Rule 20(2) of the Rules of and Procedure for the Traffic Tribunal permits relief of judgment based on newly discovered evidence only if the evidence is material enough so that it would probably change the outcome of the proceedings and if the evidence cited was not discoverable at the time of the original hearing by the exercise of ordinary diligence. The Court held that the evidence the defendant offered was immaterial because at the time he was cited the median strip was not in place. Therefore, it would make no difference whether the DOT had planned to construct a median in the future because the defendant was not exempt from the obligations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-20-12 at the time of the violation. Additionally, the defendant failed to meet his burden that the “newly discovered” evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of the motion for relief of judgment and sustained the violation against the defendant.