§88-22 System established; name. There
shall be a retirement system for the purpose of providing retirement allowances
and other benefits for employees. It shall have the powers and privileges of a
corporation and shall be known as the "Employees' Retirement System of the
State of Hawaii" and by that name may sue or be sued, transact all of its
business, invest all of its funds, and hold all of its cash and securities and
other property. [L 1925, c 55, §2; am imp L 1927, c 251, §§1, 2, 5; RL 1935,
§7921; am L 1935, c 48, §3; RL 1945, §702; RL 1955, §6-21; HRS §88-22; am L
1969, c 110, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Where no showing that board's failure to authorize and pursue
appeal would precipitate crisis in system's operations or jeopardize system's
corporate existence, system's purported administrator could not initiate appeal
on system's behalf under exception to general rule that only corporation's
board possesses authority to control corporation's litigation. 87 H. 152, 952
P.2d 1215.
Mentioned: 74 H. 181, 840 P.2d 367.
Notes of Decisions
Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 8× “HRS §§ 88-22 (1993), 88-42 (1993). Chapter 88 of the HRS governs the operation of the ERS and vests “general administration and the responsibility for the proper operation” in Trustees.”
Kahoohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 8× “HRS §§ 88-22 (1993), 88-42 (1993). Chapter 88 of the HRS governs the operation of the ERS and vests "general administration and the responsibility for the proper operation" in Trustees.”
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 106 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 88-22 provides: System established; name.”
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 952 P.2d 1215 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 8× “” 9 On April 4, 1996, the Retirees filed a motion to dismiss the Board’s and the ERS’s appeals on the related grounds that: (1) the Attorney General lacked authority to appeal on the Board’s behalf because her client—the Board—had expressly refused to authorize the same; (2)…”
Everson v. State, 228 P.3d 282 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 4× “" HRS § 88-22 (1993). However, a "retirement allowance" is now defined as "the benefit payable for life as originally computed and paid a member at the point of the member's retirement in accordance with the retirement allowance option selected by the member, exclusive of any…”
Douglass v. Pflueger Hawaii, Inc., 135 P.3d 129 (Haw. 2006).
“Section 390-2 was enacted in 1969, replacing Revised Laws of Hawaii § 88-22 (1955). See 1969 Haw. Sess. L. Act 162, pt of § 2.”
Sifagaloa v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys., 840 P.2d 367 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 88-22 (1985) provides in relevant part that “[t]here shall be a retirement system for the purpose of providing retirement allowances and other benefits for employees.”
Vail v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 856 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 2× “HRS §§ 88-22 and 88-23. This appeal focuses on certain provisions of HRS chapter 88, an ERS administrative rule governing membership in the system, and the methods of calculating the membership service of differently situated employees.”
Fratinardo v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of the State, 295 P.3d 977 (Haw. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” 8 That consistent interpretation has apparently never been formally challenged before Petitioners’ claim. Furthermore, Petitioners do not dispute that their employers never made contributions to ERS based on the allowances, and the statements of earnings and deductions issued…”
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.