State has waived immunity in Hawaii

2017This court has previously established “that the State has waived immunity to suit . . . to the extent as specified in HRS chapter[] . . . 662.” Nelson, 130 Hawaii at 169, 307 P.3d at 149 (footnote omitted) (quoting Taylor–Rice v. State, 105 Hawaii 104, 110, 94 P.3d 659, 665 (2004)).

2013“This court has noted that the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 661 5 and 662 6 .” Taylor-Rice v. State, 105 Hawai'i 104, 110 , 94 P.3d 659, 665 (2004) (citation omitted). 7 In Sierra Club , this court concluded that HRS § 661-1 waived sovereign immunity on all claims founded upon any statute, the statute in that case being HRS § 343-7 (1993), which authorized judicial review of a state agency’s decisions concerning environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. 120 Hawai'i at 226-28 , 202 P.3d at 1271-73 .

2005Taylor-Rice described the relevant legal principles as follows: In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this court has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Cl

2004In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this coui’t has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’ ” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Claims Act” (citation omitted)).

2005Taylor-Rice described the relevant legal principles as follows: In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this court has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Cl

2005Taylor-Rice described the relevant legal principles as follows: In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this court has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Cl

2005Taylor-Rice described the relevant legal principles as follows: In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this court has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Cl

2005Taylor-Rice described the relevant legal principles as follows: In determining the extent to which the State has waived its immunity, this court has stated that “federal immunity principles ... are ‘relevant to our own principles of sovereign immunity.’” Bush, 81 Hawai'i at 481 , 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation omitted); see also Whittington v. State, 72 Haw. 77, 78 , 806 P.2d 957, 957 (1991) (noting that the STLA was modeled on the preceding and parallel federal act); Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 383-84 , 604 P.2d 1198, 1206 (1979) (stating that “the [STLA] was modeled after the Federal Tort Cl

2017Generally, “the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 661 and 662.” Kaleikini, 129 Hawai'i at 467 , 304 P.3d at 265 (observing that HRS § 661-1(1) (1993) includes a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State that are based on a statute).

2017Generally, “the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 661 and 662.” Kaleikini, 129 Hawai'i at 467 , 304 P.3d at 265 (observing that HRS § 661-1(1) (1993) includes a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State that are based on a statute).

2017This court has previously established “that the State has waived immunity to suit . . . to the extent as specified in HRS chapter[] . . . 662.” Nelson, 130 Hawaii at 169, 307 P.3d at 149 (footnote omitted) (quoting Taylor–Rice v. State, 105 Hawaii 104, 110, 94 P.3d 659, 665 (2004)).

2013HRS § 661-1(1) “contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State of Hawai'i that are founded upon a statute[.]” 13 Garner v. State, Dep’t of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 160 , 223 P.3d 215, 225 (App.2009).

2013HRS § 661-1(1) “contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims against the State of Hawai'i that are founded upon a statute[.]” 13 Garner v. State, Dep’t of Educ., 122 Hawai'i 150, 160 , 223 P.3d 215, 225 (App.2009).

2013“This court has noted that the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 6615 and 6626.” essentially an award of damages. . . .” 87 Hawai‘i at 52, 951 P.2d at 502 (emphasis added).

2009Specifically regarding interest on damages, federal courts have noted that " interest cannot be recovered in a suit against the Government in the absence of an express waiver of sovereign immunity from an award of interest ." United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1345 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); see also United States v. $277,000 U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995).

2009Specifically regarding interest on damages, federal courts have noted that " interest cannot be recovered in a suit against the Government in the absence of an express waiver of sovereign immunity from an award of interest ." United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1345 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); see also United States v. $277,000 U.S. Currency, 69 F.3d 1491, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995).

2004This court has noted that the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 661 and 662. 9 Waugh v. Univ. of Hawai‘i 63 Haw. 117, 125 , 621 P.2d 957, 965 (1980).

2004This court has noted that the State has waived immunity to suit only to the extent as specified in HRS chapters 661 and 662. 9 Waugh v. Univ. of Hawai‘i 63 Haw. 117, 125 , 621 P.2d 957, 965 (1980).