Hawaii Supreme Court· 7/23/1996

Richard v. Metcalf

Citations

921 P.2d 169
82 Haw. 249

How courts have described this case

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

finding amendment to an insurance statute did not apply to treatment of injuries sustained by a patient- prior to the amendment's effective date
listing, “in order from the broadest to the narrowest category, the respective classes of potential litigants under HRS chapters 91 and 92” as “any person,” “any interested person,” and “persons aggrieved ... in a contested case”
plaintiff established standing where accidental \injury [wa]s fairly traceable to the [Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs]' adoption of [a statute]\
plaintiff established standing where accidental “injury [wa]s fairly traceable to the [Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs]’ adoption of [a statute]”
“[Sjomeone who would have, or already has, qualified as an ‘aggrieved person’ under HRS § 91-14 (1993) certainly qualifies as an Interested person’ under HRS § 91-7[ 32 ].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.