Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

AlohaCare v. Ito

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 2012No. SCAP-30276Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

ACOBA, J.

In my view, (1) an “interested” person, who may judicially appeal a declaratory or*354der issued by an agency under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-8 (1993),1 is one who is affected by or involved with any statute, rule, or order under that administrative agency’s jurisdiction; (2) Petitioner/ Appellant-Appellant AlohaCare (AlohaCare), as an “interested person,” was thus entitled, pursuant to HRS § 91-8, to appeal the order of the Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) denying AlohaCare’s…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Gray v. Administrative Director of CourtHawaii Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Roxas v. MarcosHawaii Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Life of the Land v. LAND USE COM'N, ETC.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Lingle v. Hawai'i Government Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152Hawaii Supreme Court · 2005

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API