Rump v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the court and when the court determines that an interpretive regulation is clearly erroneous or violates legislative intent, the court will disregard the regulation
• holding that interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the court and when the court determines that an interpretive regulation is clearly erroneous or violates legislative intent, the court will disregard the regulation
• holding that interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the court and when the court determines that an interpretive regulation is clearly erroneous or violates legislative intent, the court will disregard the regulation
• holding that interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the court and when the court determines that an interpretive regulation is clearly erroneous or violates legislative intent, the court will disregard the regulation
• commenting that the legislative concern over the increasing costs of automobile insurance is the public policy which is to be advanced when interpreting the statutory provisions of the MVFRL

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).