Hawaii Revised Statutes
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-11 (2026)
Effect of repeal on pending suit or prosecution
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§1-11 Effect of repeal on pending suit or prosecution. No suit or prosecution pending at the time of the repeal of any law, for any offense committed, or for the recovery of any penalty or forfeiture incurred under the law so repealed, shall be affected by such repeal. [CC 1859, §23; RL 1925, §25; RL 1935, §27; RL 1945, §27; RL 1955, §1-14; HRS §1-11]
Case Notes
Prosecution for gaming valid though law repealed pending appeal taken for trial de novo. 9 H. 98.
Section applied and minimum term of imprisonment was determinable under the law as it existed at time of commission of crime. 50 H. 351, 440 P.2d 528.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1961–2007 · leading case: State v. Domingues, 107 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2005).
State v. Domingues, 107 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2005). “In the present matter, the prosecution concedes that Act 189 did not include a savings clause and that HRS § 1-11 (1993), [6] "the *414 general savings clause for criminal statutes[,] did not apply in this case[,] as the case was pending investigation, not prosecution[,] after…”
State v. Reis, 165 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2007). “to a case in which the offense preceded the effective date of Act 44) since such statutes were still subject to HRS § 1-3 which, as noted, states that "[n]o law has any retrospective operation, unless otherwise expressed or obviously intended" and HRS § 1-11 (1993) which states…”
State v. Young, 109 P.3d 677 (Haw. 2005). “In the present matter, the prosecution concedes that “[i]t does not appear that the instant case would qualify as a pending prosecution [within the meaning of the general savings statute, HRS § 1-11 (1993), 4 inasmuch] as the indictment was filed after January 1, 2002.”
State v. Von Geldern, 638 P.2d 319 (Haw. 1981). “766 (1936); HRS § 1-11. 3 The defendant in this case was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment of 5 years under HRS § 706-606.”
State v. Park, 525 P.2d 586 (Haw. 1974). “1973, and said Act 185 substituted a new subpart B on election campaign contributions and expenditures. A counterpart of HRS § 11-193 (Supp.”
Holiday v. United States, 683 A.2d 61 (D.C. 1996). “3 (quoting Haw.Rev.Stat. § 1-11). . Other states, interpreting similar statutes, have held that the savings statute was inapplicable because the repealed statute did not involve a "penalty.”
Waianae Coast Neighborhood Bd. v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 637 P.2d 776 (Haw. 1981). “1 HRS § 205A-31 was in fact repealed by the legislature by Act 200 in 1979, but by-virtue of HRS § 1-11, the subsequent repeal of HRS § 205A-31 has no affect on the instant case.”
In Re Island Airlines, Inc., 361 P.2d 390 (Haw. 1961). “So here, the case turns on the application to be made of the rule that: “ Where a provision which excepts a class * * * from the operation of the act is repealed, the law operates generally over the excepted class * * ” When that rule applies: “This is not the reviving of a…”
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.