§1-23 Severability. If any provision
of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Hawaii Revised Statutes,
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, shall
not be affected thereby. [L 1955, c 57, §1(f); RL 1955, §1-29; HRS §1-23]
Case Notes
Part may be invalid and rest valid. 7 H. 76, 78; 9 H. 171,
174; 12 H. 120, 122; 13 H. 590, 593; 15 H. 607, 609; 19 H. 535, 542; 19 H. 628,
629; 21 H. 39, 42; 28 H. 222, 227; 31 H. 196, 202; 31 H. 678, 697; 36 H. 32,
41; 38 H. 310, 328; 40 H. 604, 609. But if an essential part is invalid the
whole is. 15 H. 365, 370.
If an exception is invalid whole may fall. 11 H. 112, 121;
13 H. 590, 595; 15 H. 361.
Statute may be invalid as to some and not as to other objects
within its terms. 13 H. 590, 594; 121 F. 772. But see 31 H. 196, 202; 31 H.
678, 697.
Where one part invalid remainder cannot stand if elimination
of invalid part would alter meaning of the remainder. 15 H. 361.
See also note to §5, Hawaiian Organic Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case:
State v. Pacquing., 389 P.3d 897 (Haw. 2016).
State v. Pacquing., 389 P.3d 897 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Severability of portions of the HRS is generally authorized by HRS § 1-23 (2009): “If any provision of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, or the application of the…”
Wong v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 333 F. Supp. 2d 942 (D. Haw. 2004).
· cites it 2× “hicle identification number and license plates have been removed so as to nullify efforts to locate or identify the current registered and legal owners; (4) The vehicle has not been registered for the current or previous registration periods; (5) The vehicle registration records…”
State v. Albano, 688 P.2d 1152 (Haw. 1984).
· cites it 2× “We hold that the clause in HRS 19-3(8) which reads: “or who wilfully performs it in such a way as to hinder the objects thereof’ is unconstitutionally vague and thereby violates the due process clause of Section 5, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii.”
Globe Indem. Co. v. Teixeira, 230 F. Supp. 451 (D. Haw. 1964).
“The obvious solution is to adopt a construction which will give some effect or meaning to the words in the latter portion of the definition of non-owned automobile, and we are aided in this by Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955, Section 1-23, which has been the law of this State for…”
State v. Sorenson, 359 P.2d 289 (Haw. 1961).
“The offense is aggravated assault committed either with “intent to maim” or “with intent to disfigure.”
Yukutake v. Connors (D. Haw. 2021).
· cites it 14× ““Severability of portions of the HRS is generally authorized by HRS § 1-23.” Id. at 319, 389 P.3d at 914 .”
Wee v. Bd. of Acct., 452 P.2d 94 (Haw. 1969).
“1955, § 1-23 provides: “Each of the terms 'or’ and 'and’ has the meaning of the other or of both”; and § 1-18 provides that in construing ambiguous statutory language, the true meaning of ambiguous words may be ascertained by examining the context in which they are used.”
Reeves v. Nago (D. Haw. 2021).
· cites it 4× “” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-23 ; see also State v.”
Spirit of Aloha Temple v. Cnty. of Maui (D. Haw. 2023).
“Moreover, Hawaii has a general severability statute, section 1-23 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. That statute provides, “If any provision of Hawaii Revised Statutes, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the Hawaii Revised…”
O'Hailpin (D. Haw. 2025).
“, §1-23 ¶¶ 7-8, 10; at §2-7 ¶¶ FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, CCC; §4-2C.”
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.