Hawaii Revised Statutes
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 348-5 (2026)
Federal employees
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§348-5 Federal employees. Rehabilitation services provided under the state plan shall be available to any civil employee of the United States disabled while in the performance of the employee's duty, on the same terms and conditions as apply to other persons. [L 1955, c 231, pt of §2; RL 1955, §42-34; HRS §348-5; gen ch 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2002–2017 · leading case: Umberger v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017).
Umberger v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017). “As discussed, the fact that a proposed activity qualifies as an “action” does not mean that it would require environmental review, since the activity must also fall within a statutory category listed in HRS § 348-5(a) and not be exempt from HEPA.”
Nuuanu Valley Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 194 P.3d 531 (Haw. 2008). “The state Department of Land and Natural Resources sent DPP a letter dated April 17, 2006, which recommended that DPP require Laumaka to perform a “slope stability analysis” and “appropriate mitigation measures to address the risks identified by the study and other known hazards.”
Sierra Club v. Hawaii Tourism Auth., 59 P.3d 877 (Haw. 2002). “I would hold that when a prospective plaintiff claims a procedural violation for an agency’s expenditure of funds, pursuant to HRS § 348-5(a)(l), it must prove (1) a nexus between the use of state and county moneys and the effects on land designated by HRS § 343-5(a), and (2) a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 348-5(a) — 1 case
Umberger v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources., 403 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2017). “As discussed, the fact that a proposed activity qualifies as an “action” does not mean that it would require environmental review, since the activity must also fall within a statutory category listed in HRS § 348-5(a) and not be exempt from HEPA.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 348-5(a)(l) — 2 cases
Nuuanu Valley Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 194 P.3d 531 (Haw. 2008). “The state Department of Land and Natural Resources sent DPP a letter dated April 17, 2006, which recommended that DPP require Laumaka to perform a “slope stability analysis” and “appropriate mitigation measures to address the risks identified by the study and other known hazards.”
Sierra Club v. Hawaii Tourism Auth., 59 P.3d 877 (Haw. 2002). “I would hold that when a prospective plaintiff claims a procedural violation for an agency’s expenditure of funds, pursuant to HRS § 348-5(a)(l), it must prove (1) a nexus between the use of state and county moneys and the effects on land designated by HRS § 343-5(a), and (2) a…”
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.