Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 184
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 184-7 (2026)

  County contributions

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

     §184-7  County contributions.  Any county may donate, grant, convey, lease upon a nominal consideration or appropriate land, money or other property for the development, improvement, extension, operation, or maintenance of the state park system by the department of land and natural resources as provided in this part. [L 1949, c 185, pt of §1; RL 1955, §19-38; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §21; am L 1961, c 132, §2; HRS §184-7]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–2002 · leading case: State v. Shimabukuro, 60 P.3d 274 (Haw. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shimabukuro, 60 P.3d 274 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the amendment, HRS § 184-7(b) read in relevant part that: No person who is under indictment or who has waived indictment for, or has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or of the illegal sale of any drug,…”
State v. Holbron, 895 P.2d 173 (Haw. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Hawai'i Supreme Court has held that a prior version of HRS § 184-7(b), 3 which was substantially like the present statute and which did not specify any state of mind, required proof that Defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 184-7(b) — 2 cases
State v. Shimabukuro, 60 P.3d 274 (Haw. 2002). “Pursuant to the amendment, HRS § 184-7(b) read in relevant part that: No person who is under indictment or who has waived indictment for, or has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or of the illegal sale of any drug,…”
State v. Holbron, 895 P.2d 173 (Haw. App. 1995). “The Hawai'i Supreme Court has held that a prior version of HRS § 184-7(b), 3 which was substantially like the present statute and which did not specify any state of mind, required proof that Defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
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.