Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-34 (2026)

Issue as to use may be set for immediate trial

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§101-34 Issue as to use may be set for immediate trial. If the defendant, in the defendant's answer or in return to the order to show cause, issued under section 101-28, denies that the use for which the property sought to be condemned is a public use, or a superior public use within the meaning of section 101-7, the issue, upon the motion of any party, may be set for immediate trial, without a jury and without regard to position on the calendar. Notwithstanding any provision of section 641-1, an interlocutory appeal shall lie from the decision on the issue as of right, and the appeal shall be given precedence in the intermediate appellate court. Failure of the defendant to raise the issue within ten days after service of an order granting immediate possession shall be deemed an admission that the use is a public use or a superior public use, as the case may be. [L 1951, c 12, pt of §1(l); RL 1955, §8-32; HRS §101-34; am L 1973, c 30, §4; gen ch 1985; am L 2004, c 202, §11; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

Case Notes

Interlocutory appeal is a matter of right on the issue of public use. 44 H. 7, 352 P.2d 333. Appeal under section. 46 H. 279, 378 P.2d 882.

Trial should be held under this section with respect to issue of public use, rather than decide constitutionality of a statute by summary judgment. 65 H. 465, 653 P.2d 781.

Provides constitutional, adequate remedy to raise issue of public use in eminent domain proceedings under chapter 516. 72 H. 466, 822 P.2d 955.

Supreme court has jurisdiction under this section to hear appeal from order granting partial summary judgment in matter involving exercise of power of eminent domain. 79 H. 64, 898 P.2d 576.

Pursuant to this section, the trustee defendants were entitled as of right to an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court's adverse decision regarding public use. 100 H. 182, 58 P.3d 1229.

Cited: 39 H. 545, 547.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ing, 58 P.3d 1229 (Haw. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ing, 58 P.3d 1229 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 32× “” 6 The City and the Lessees each cross-appeal from the circuit court’s decision and contend that the circuit court erred in concluding: (1) that HRS § 101-34 (1993) 7 permits an interlocutory appeal in the present matter; (2) that HRS § 101-34 mandates a stay of the valuation…”

Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 979 P.2d 1107 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “”); HRS § 101-34 (1993) (providing for a trial "without jury” on public use issue), the United States Supreme Court held in Del Monte Dunes that the jury rightfully determined whether the challenged regulation “deprived the landowner of all economically viable use” and…”

Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Takabuki, 921 P.2d 92 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 4× “All of the parties agree that the minimum number in this action was twenty-five.”

Takabuki v. Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp., 822 P.2d 955 (Haw. 1991). · cites it 4× “That does not mean, however, that the landowner has no means of contesting public use, since HRS § 101-34 expressly *468 provides that if the landowner properly raises the question of whether there is a public use, the issue can be separated out and tried and indeed appealed in…”

City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sherman, 129 P.3d 542 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 6× “That does not mean, however, that the landowner has no means of contesting public use, since HRS § 101-34 [(1993) [17] ] expressly provides that if the landowner properly raises the question of whether there is a public use, the issue can be separated out and tried and indeed…”

Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Castle, 653 P.2d 781 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal under § 101-34, HRS, from an order granting a motion for partial summary judgment, made by Appellee Hawaii Housing Authority and joined in by the Appellee Lessees, determining that the taking by eminent domain in this case was for a public use.”

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.