Haole v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the DOT's rulemaking authority was specifically defined and did not encompass the right to require that carriers indemnify the State
• recognizing that the DOT’s rule-making authority was specifically defined and did not encompass the right to require that carriers indemnify the State
• “[U]nder the ‘complaint allegation rule,’ if there is no potential for indemnification, then no duty to defend will arise.”
• “Administrative rules and regulations which exceed the scope of the statutory enactment they were devised to implement are invalid and must be struck down.”
• “if there is no potential for indemnification, then no duty to defend will arise”
• “if there is no potential for indemnification, then no duty to defend will arise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).