Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 241
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 241-7 (2026)

  Disposition of funds

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

     §241-7  Disposition of funds.  From the revenues collected under this chapter each fiscal year, the sum representing the first $2,000,000 of such revenues shall be deposited with the director of finance to the credit of the compliance resolution fund as established pursuant to section 26-9(o) before tax credits are realized.  Any revenues collected under this chapter in excess of $2,000,000 at the close of any fiscal year shall be deposited into the general fund. [L Sp 1957, c 1, pt of §10(a); Supp, §127-7; HRS §241-7; am L 1999, c 182, §1; am L 2001, c 28, §1; am L 2022, c 72, §2]

 

Note

 

  The 2022 amendment applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.  L 2022, c 72, §4.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1961–2012 · leading case: Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Newtown Meadows Ex Rel. Bd. of Directors v. Venture 15, Inc., 167 P.3d 225 (Haw. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Newtown Meadows Ex Rel. Bd. of Directors v. Venture 15, Inc., 167 P.3d 225 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 4× “In the context of property damage, this court has previously stated that, under Revised Laws of Hawai`i (RLH) § 241-7 (1955), [36] a predecessor to HRS § 657-7, the statute of limitations begins to run "when the plaintiff knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have…”
Hatsumi Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hosp., 427 P.2d 845 (Haw. 1967). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff's appeal brings before the court the question when the statute of limitations begins to run in a malpractice suit, and the further question as to the applicability of R.L.H.1955, § 241-1, the six-year statute relating to actions ex contractu.”
Hays v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 917 P.2d 718 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 4× “[) ] 1955, *394 § 241-7,1[ 2 ] which applies to cases of injury to property as well as to injury to persons.”
First Ins. Co. of Hawaii v. a & B Props., Inc., 271 P.3d 1165 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “The Legislature amended this statute in 1955 and recodified it as RLH § 241-7 (Supp. 1955), which read: "Actions for the recovery of compensation for damages or injury to persons or property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued, and not after.”
Jacoby v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 622 P.2d 613 (Haw. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “We thus must contend with the possibility that the two years ran as to some portion of the care and treatment but not as to other portions because plaintiffs had or should have had the requisite knowledge as to some portions of it but not as to all of it.”
Buck v. Miles, 971 P.2d 717 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “based upon such person’s alleged professional negligence, shall be brought more than two years after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury[.”
Chapman v. Brown, 198 F. Supp. 78 (D. Haw. 1961). · cites it 2× “1955, § 241-7. 20 . At page 83 of this decision.”
Basque v. Yuk Lin Liau, 441 P.2d 636 (Haw. 1968). · cites it 2× “1955, § 241-7, which applies to cases of injury to property as well as to injury to persons.”
Hatsumi Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hosp., 433 P.2d 220 (Haw. 1967). “1955, § 241-7 (emphasis added). Clearly, the determining word in the statute is “accrued.”
Del Rosario v. Kohanuinui, 483 P.2d 181 (Haw. 1971). · cites it 2× “" NOTES [1] The relevant language of RLH 1955 § 241-7, Damage to persons or property, is: "Actions for the recovery of compensation for damages or injury to persons or property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued, * * *.”
Gates v. P. F. Collier, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 204 (D. Haw. 1966). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff urges that any claims for these books is barred by the two-year statute of limitations, § 241-7 R.L.H. 1955: “Actions for * * * damages or injury to * * * property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued * * and since defendant’s…”
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.