Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 22
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 22-2 (2026)

  Succession to presiding office of senate and house of representatives

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

     §22-2  Succession to presiding office of senate and house of representatives.  In case of the removal from office, or the death, resignation, absence from the State, or other inability of the presiding officer of the senate or the house of representatives to discharge the duties of the presiding officer's office, the vice-presiding officer of the senate or the house of representatives, as the case may be, shall become presiding officer until the disability be removed or until a successor to the office of presiding officer is qualified in accordance with the rules of the senate or the house of representatives, as the case may be. [L 1965, c 231, pt of §1; Supp, §2-51; HRS §22-2; gen ch 1985]

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). “In both cases, the ZBA ruled that the Petitioners failed to meet the mandatory appeal filing deadline specified under Section 22-2(a), of the Rules of the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA rules”) and LUO Section 21-1.”
Hoku Lele, LLC v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 296 P.3d 1072 (Haw. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “40 (1999) 4 and ZBA Rules §§ 22-2 and 22-7 (1998) 5 establish a mandatory, exclusive, and short thirty-day period within which a director’s action can be appealed to the ZBA; once the thirty-day period has passed, the director’s action becomes final and binding.”
Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp. 78 (D. Haw. 1961). · cites it 2× “” ,(§ 22-2 (e)). (e) §§ 22-20 to 22-25, enacted in 1955, regulating export agricultural commodities under prescribed civil and criminal penalties with a similar saving clause preserving other possible civil and other remedies (§ 22-25 (d)).”
Marsland v. Pang, 701 P.2d 175 (Haw. App. 1985). “1960) (strip mining); § 22-2(b) (Supp. 1963) (health); § 22-26.”
Card v. Zoning Bd. of Honolulu, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). “In both cases, the ZBA ruled that the Petitioners failed to meet the mandatory appeal filing deadline specified under Section 22-2(a), of the Rules of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA rules") and LUO Section 21-1.”
Keep the North Shore Country v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Haw. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “The ZBA concluded that Appellants' Appeal Petitions were untimely as to each of the DPP Approvals, pursuant to ZBA Rules § 22-2 and Honolulu Land Use Ordinance (LUO) § 21- 1.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 22-2(a) — 2 cases
Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). “In both cases, the ZBA ruled that the Petitioners failed to meet the mandatory appeal filing deadline specified under Section 22-2(a), of the Rules of the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA rules”) and LUO Section 21-1.”
Card v. Zoning Bd. of Honolulu, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). “In both cases, the ZBA ruled that the Petitioners failed to meet the mandatory appeal filing deadline specified under Section 22-2(a), of the Rules of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA rules") and LUO Section 21-1.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 22-2(b) — 1 case
Marsland v. Pang, 701 P.2d 175 (Haw. App. 1985). “1960) (strip mining); § 22-2(b) (Supp. 1963) (health); § 22-26.”
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.