Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 1
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-9 (2026)

  Express or implied repeals

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

     §1-9  Express or implied repeals.  The repeal of a law is either express or implied.  It is express when it is literally declared by a subsequent law; it is implied when the new law contains provisions contrary to, or irreconcilable with, those of the former law. [CC 1859, §21; RL 1925, §23; RL 1935, §25; RL 1945, §25; RL 1955, §1-12; HRS §1-9]

 

Case Notes

 

Generally.

  Amendment intended to take place of previous act impliedly repeals it.  9 H. 171, 176.  Though amendatory act expressly repeals chapter amended, effect is that amended chapter takes place of previous law and is not itself repealed.  9 H. 171, 177.  Provision applicable at a later time does not supersede present provision immediately.  17 H. 23.

  Repeals by implication not favored.  9 H. 402, 404; 20 H. 170; 26 H. 469, 472; 30 H. 658, 663; 42 H. 518; 69 F.2d 954.  This section fixes the rule on the subject of implied repeals.  20 H. 170, 171.

  Where attempt apparently made to repeal expressly all former laws intended to be repealed, repeal by implication not found.  9 H. 402, 404.  Express repeal by void act, earlier act remains in force.  14 H. 215, 221.  Where statute amended "to read as follows" parts omitted are repealed.  22 H. 183; 24 H. 12.

  For later statute covering entire subject matter of earlier statute to repeal the earlier statute, the legislative intent to repeal must be clear.  50 H. 351, 440 P.2d 528.

  Repeals by implication not favored.  54 H. 519, 511 P.2d 161.

 

Common law.

  Court should not, merely by application of maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius, find common law superseded in area not mentioned in statute.  49 H. 624, 628, 425 P.2d 1014; see 37 H. 571, 574.

 

General and special laws.

  General (affirmative) law does not abrogate earlier special one by mere implication.  9 H. 402, 404.  But when later act covers whole subject matter, repeal by implication found.  30 H. 658; 50 H. 277, 439 P.2d 206.  Special statute controls general without regard to priority of enactment.  8 H. 381, 382; 34 H. 484, 488-9; 45 H. 650, 662, 372 P.2d 348.  Where statute prescribes special rule applicable to certain class and another statute prescribes general rule, repeal of special statute renders general statute applicable to the special class and this is not a revivor of a repealed statute.  10 H. 241; 23 H. 558, 561; 44 H. 634, 648, 361 P.2d 390.

  Specific statute is favored over general one when two statutes cover same subject.  54 H. 250, 505 P.2d 1179.

 

Joint resolution of annexation.

  Effect of on Hawaiian laws, see 12 H. 58; 190 U.S. 197.  Referred to:  3 H. 90, 98; 7 H. 359, 362; 16 H. 769, 781; 18 H. 485, 487; 22 H. 96, 107.

 

Jurisdiction; remedies.

  Law conferring on one court jurisdiction conferred on another by previous law does not repeal earlier law by implication; jurisdiction concurrent unless later law confers exclusive jurisdiction.  1 H. 31; 10 H. 476; 19 H. 106, 116; see 7 H. 270.  Same where statutory remedy enacted but merely permissive or not complete; earlier remedy still exists.  3 H. 127, 137; 3 H. 618; 12 H. 12, 13; 14 H. 554, 564; 26 H. 89, 91; 40 H. 397, 412; see 10 H. 507.  Compare where statutory remedy not merely cumulative, 5 H. 57; where statute itself confers the right, 3 H. 127, 136; 3 H. 618, 621; 5 H. 57, 58.  Tax appeals, exclusiveness of statutory remedy.  14 H. 117.

 

Revised laws.

  Where repugnant statutes are carried into revised laws and enacted, original statutes may be referred to and the later enactment controls.  23 H. 91, 95; 28 H. 744, 751.

 

Other instances.

  Repeal of laws conferring exclusive fishing rights repeals penal provision applicable to violation of such rights.  16 H. 306.  Law prohibiting infamous punishment supersedes provision for hard labor but not provision for imprisonment.  17 H. 428, 438; 23 H. 91.  Employee blanketed into civil service is no longer removable at pleasure though so removable when appointed. 30 H. 477.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1961–2020 · leading case: State v. Hoshijo Ex Rel. White, 76 P.3d 550 (Haw. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hoshijo Ex Rel. White, 76 P.3d 550 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 2× “Act 252, §§ 1-9, at 549-53 (approving Senate Bill 1567 on June 12, 1991).”
Kawauchi v. Tabata, 413 P.2d 221 (Haw. 1966). · cites it 8× “1955, § 1-9, declaring that: "Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law is void, although the nullity be not formally directed.”
State v. Reis, 165 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 2× “Act 139, §§ 1-9 at 312-16. Act 139, section 10 contained a savings clause identical to the language in Act 44, section 29.”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Hsiung, 124 P.3d 434 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 3× “” Based on this language, the Appli *174 cants argue that DCS Rules § 2-14 constitutes a special rule for proof of residency and possessory control that establishes an otherwise qualified applicant is deemed to have constructively met the twelve-month residency requirement by…”
Nobriga v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 683 P.2d 389 (Haw. 1984). · cites it 2× “While repeals by implication are possible, HRS § 1-9, they are not favored. Costa Minors v.”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ing, 58 P.3d 1229 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 2× “Rules § 1-9 (1993) (“Burden of proof; oaths; affidavits.”
Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 762 P.2d 796 (Haw. 1988). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 1-7 (1985), HRS § 1-9 (1985); see also Hamano v. Miyake, 24 Haw.”
State v. Jones, 365 P.2d 460 (Haw. 1961). “1915, § 9791, which had been amended by section 1 and was not “any other laAV.”
Jack's Tours, Inc. v. Kilauea Military Camp, 145 P.3d 693 (Haw. 2006). “]” AR 215-1 § 1-9, entitled “[MWR] program objectives,” provides that the MWR program: a.”
Sheveland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.., 436 P.3d 1175 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 2× “") (citations omitted); HRS § 1-9 (2009) ("The repeal of a law is .”
Malabe v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Exec. Centre. (Haw. 2020). · cites it 2× “Laws Act 282, §§ 1-9, at 779-83; 2019 House Journal, at 734- 35 (Gov.”
Moloaa Farms LLC v. Kauai Plan. Comm'n (D. Haw. 2020). “The Parties agree that the Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Planning Commission fulfilled the requirements of Section 1-9- 2(1)-(6). (Def.’s Supp. Brief at p.”
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.