Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-10 (2026)

§ 1-10

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

     §1-10  Effect of repeal on accrued rights.  The repeal of any law shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing, accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceedings had or commenced in any civil case, before the time when the repeal takes effect. [CC 1859, §22; RL 1925, §24; RL 1935, §26; RL 1945, §26; RL 1955, §1-13; HRS §1-10]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Effect of rules of court on pending proceedings, see HRPP rule 59 and Sup. Ct. order of October 29, 1976.

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  New administrative rules superseded old rules as to all matters except permit applications that were filed before July 1, 1994; further, on or after July 1, 1994, when statutory authority for old rules was repealed, the old rules were void and not in effect, the only exception being with respect to pending permit applications from the period before July 1, 1994.  Att. Gen. Op. 97-4.

 

Case Notes

 

  A law repealing former divorce laws does not affect pending suits.  3 H. 304.

  Repeal in 1859 of provision for reservation of mineral rights, effect of.  49 H. 429, 442, 421 P.2d 570.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1948–2016 · leading case: Mount v. Apao., 384 P.3d 1268 (Haw. 2016).
Mount v. Apao., 384 P.3d 1268 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to HRS § 1-10 (2009), "[t]he repeal of any law shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing, accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceedings had or commenced in any civil case, before the time when the repeal takes effect.”
Keahole Def. Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 134 P.3d 585 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 4× “However, this court decided that, pursuant to HRS § 1-10 (1993) (governing the effect of repeal on accrued rights), because "HELCO submitted its application in 1992[,] .”
Hawaii Elec. Light Co. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 75 P.3d 160 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “HRS § 1-10 (1993), however, governs the effect of repeal on accrued rights and states: The repeal of any law shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing, accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceedings had or commenced in any civil case, before tire time…”
Dannenberg v. State, 383 P.3d 1177 (Haw. 2016). “Laws Act 88, §§ 1-10 at 138-62. The Health Fund was replaced with the EUTF, through the passage of Act 88, which is now codified as HRS Chapter 87A.”
Graham Constr. Supply, Inc. v. Schrader Constr., Inc., 632 P.2d 649 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 2× “6 HRS § 1-10, a general saving statute, reads: The repeal of any law shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing, accrued, acquired, or established, or any suit or proceedings had or commenced in any civil case, before the time when the repeal takes effect.”
In the Matter of Eve M. Carlson, 38 Haw. 9 (Haw. 1948). “140, §§ 1-10), but raises no question of constitutionality with respect to the enactment’s requirement that persons acting as real estate brokers and salesmen be licensed.”
Althouse v. State, 137 P.3d 349 (Haw. 2006). “In particular, Althouse's notice of appeal does not identify the court’s "Order Denying Petitioner's Motion For Stay Of New Minimum Term Hearing Pending Appeal Of Court’s Decision”'as a basis from which his second point of error is derived.”
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.