Hawaii Revised Statutes
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-18 (2026)
"Or", "and"
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§1-18 "Or", "and". Each of the terms "or" and "and", has the meaning of the other or of both. [PC 1869, c 1, §4; RL 1925, §15; RL 1935, §16; RL 1945, §15; am L 1945, c 233, §2; RL 1955, §1-23; HRS §1-18]
Case Notes
Applied: 230 F. Supp. 455; 17 H. 135, 141; 34 H. 935, 941.
"And" deemed conjunctive, not alternative. 33 H. 98, 101.
"Or" deemed alternative, not conjunctive, penal statute. 44 H. 601, 604, 359 P.2d 289.
Applied in substituting "and" for "or" in public accountancy statute. 51 H. 80, 452 P.2d 94.
"Or" deemed "and". 54 H. 356, 507 P.2d 169.
Use of word "and" is not necessarily decisive. 56 H. 675, 548 P.2d 268.
Cited: 52 F.2d 411, 414; 5 H. 52, 53; 19 H. 393, 397.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1960–2018 · leading case: State v. Bayly, 185 P.3d 186 (Haw. 2008).
State v. Bayly, 185 P.3d 186 (Haw. 2008). “See HRS § 1-18 (1993); In re City & County of Honolulu Corp.”
Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp. of the State, 202 P.3d 1226 (Haw. 2009). “Laws Act 2, §§ 1-18 at 5-21. The purpose of the act was stated as follows: (d) The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the establishment of inter-island ferry service and, at the same time, protect Hawaii’s fragüe environment by clarifying that neither the preparation of an…”
State v. Codiamat., 317 P.3d 664 (Haw. 2013). “HRS § 1-18 (1993), dealing with construction of 6 laws, states that "[e]ach of the terms 'or' and 'and', has the meaning of the other or both.”
Gillan v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 1071 (Haw. 2008). “Act 124, §§ 1-18, at 210. Related to those amendments, the House Committees on Consumer Protection and Commerce and Judiciary reported that the amendments served dual purposes, namely “reducing litigation [in combination] with medical cost-containment," with the ultimate goal…”
Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC., 306 P.3d 140 (Haw. 2013). “Laws Act 270, §§ 1-18 at 825-33. Two bills to amend HRS chapter 323D were introduced during the 1987 legislative session: Senate Bill 749, and House Bill 1025.”
Kimball v. Sadaoka, 548 P.2d 268 (Haw. 1976). “See HRS § 1-18. Cf. Wee v. Board of Accountancy, 51 Haw.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Schmidt, 88 P.3d 196 (Haw. 2004). “” See HRS § 1-18 (1993) (" ‘Or,’ 'and.' Each of the terms 'or' and ‘and,’ has the meaning of the other or of both.”
State v. Prevo, 361 P.2d 1044 (Haw. 1961). “1955, § 1-18. Perhaps no section of our statutes has been interpreted more frequently by the courts than the one now under scrutiny.”
Pofolk Aviation Hawaii, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp. for State of Hawai'i., 354 P.3d 436 (Haw. 2015). “DOT-A also argues that the word "or" in the last sentence of HRS § 261-12(a) should be read as “and” pursuant to HRS § 1-18. HRS § 1-18 (2009) provides that "[e]ach of the terms ‘or’ and 'and', has the meaning of the other or of both.”
State v. Taylor, 425 P.2d 1014 (Haw. 1967). “1955, § 1-18 (b) and (c), quoted in note 14. 11 “It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that the courts are bound, if possible, to give effect to all of its parts, and no sentence, clause or word shaU be construed as unmeaning or surplusage if a construction can be…”
State v. Christie, 764 P.2d 1245 (Haw. App. 1988). “*374 HRS § 1-18 (1985) provides: “Or,” “and.” Earth of the terms “or” and “and” has the meaning of the other or of both.”
Hatsumi Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hosp., 433 P.2d 220 (Haw. 1967). “1955, § 1-18 (c) reads: “Every construction which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.”
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.