Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 353
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 353-22 (2025)

  Earnings exempt from garnishment, etc

✓ laws through the 2025 session: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §353-22  Earnings exempt from garnishment, etc.  No moneys earned by a committed person and held by the department, to any amount whatsoever, shall be subject to garnishment, levy, or any like process of attachment for any cause or claim against the committed person, except as provided for in section 353-22.5. [L 1987, c 338, pt of §3; am L 1993, c 294, §2; am L 1996, c 189, §3]

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2008 · leading case: Blaisdell v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 196 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blaisdell v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 196 P.3d 277 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 20× “” Petitioner claimed that inmates were not allowed to use the money placed into the restricted account to their liking, and alleged that this practice amounted to garnishment of inmates’ earnings in violation of HRS § 353-22 (Supp.2007) 4 and HRS § 353-22.”
Blaisdell v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 151 P.3d 796 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 4× “the balance of his earnings are divided in half[,]” that “[t]he committed person is allowed to keep one half of the balance but the other half is placed into a restricted account and the inmate is not allowed to use the restricted account to his likingf ]” and that this “ruling”…”
State v. Werner, 1 P.3d 760 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “[2] Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 353-22 (Supp.1999) states, "No moneys earned by a committed person and held by the department, to any amount whatsoever, shall be subject to garnishment, levy, or any like process of attachment for any cause or claim against the committed…”
Blaisdell v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 188 P.3d 831 (Haw. App. 2008). “§353-22 Earnings exempt from garnishment, etc.”
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.