Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-229 (2026)

  Definitions relating to corporations and unincorporated associations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §702-229  Definitions relating to corporations and unincorporated associations.  As used in sections 702-227 and 702-228:

     "Agent" means any director, officer, servant, employee or other person authorized to act in behalf of the corporation or association and, in the case of an unincorporated association, a member of such association.

     "Corporation" does not include an entity organized as or by a governmental agency for the execution of a governmental program.

     "High managerial agent" means an officer of a corporation or an unincorporated association, or, in the case of a partnership, a partner, or any other agent of a corporation or unincorporated association having duties of such responsibility that his conduct may fairly be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation or the unincorporated association. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]

 

Revision Note

 

  Numeric designations deleted and definitions rearranged pursuant to §23G-15.

 

COMMENTARY ON §702-229

 

  It seems clear that, in dealing with corporate penal liability, government corporations must be exempt.  Penal liability in such a case is pointless.

  The phrases "agent" and "high managerial agent" are broadly and inclusively defined.  Given the wide variety of employment and other agency relationships, the definitions must present criteria which are very general.  Further refinement or elaboration should be left to a case-by-case determination.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2005–2005 · leading case: Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005).
Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005). “See Haw.Rev.Stat § 702-229(1) (2003); N.J. Stat.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-229(1): 1 case
Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005). “See Haw.Rev.Stat § 702-229(1) (2003); N.J. Stat.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.