§115-1 Findings and purpose. The
legislature finds that miles of shorelines, waters, and inland recreational
areas under the jurisdiction of the State are inaccessible to the public due to
the absence of public rights-of-way; that the absence of public rights-of-way
is a contributing factor to mounting acts of hostility against private
shoreline properties and properties bordering inland recreational areas; that
the population of the islands is increasing while the presently accessible
beach, shoreline, and inland recreational areas remain fixed; and that the
absence of public access to Hawaii's shorelines and inland recreational areas
constitutes an infringement upon the fundamental right of free movement in
public space and access to and use of coastal and inland recreational areas.
The purpose of this chapter is to guarantee the right of public access to the
sea, shorelines, and inland recreational areas, and transit along the
shorelines, and to provide for the acquisition of land for the purchase and
maintenance of public rights-of-way and public transit corridors. [L 1974, c
244, §1; am L 1977, c 164, §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case:
Akau v. Olohana Corp., 652 P.2d 1130 (Haw. 1982).
Akau v. Olohana Corp., 652 P.2d 1130 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 115-1. 8 HRCP 23 is virtually identical to FRCP 23.”
In Re Taxes, Kobayashi, 358 P.2d 539 (Haw. 1961).
· cites it 4× “Relying on § 116-16 read in light of the definition of “assessor” set out in § 115-1, it is contended that the government’s right to a review in this *593 court of an adverse ruling of the tax appeal court is limited and restricted to an appeal taken by an “assessor.”
Daly v. Harris, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Haw. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 115-1; S. REP. No. 841, at 12191 (1977) ("This bill would greatly increase the Department of Planning and Economic Development's efforts to assure the availability of, and accessibility to, adequate recreational, cultural and educational opportunities for the…”
Sisco v. State (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 8× “(d) Count 6 (HRS Chapter 115) In Count 6, Sisco claimed DLNR violated "HRS §§ 115-1, et seq." 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Et seq.”
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.