Richard v. Metcalf

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).