Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 444
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 444-18 (2026)

to 444-20  REPEALED

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

     §§444-18 to 444-20  REPEALED.  L 1992, c 202, §§200 to 202.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1970–2019 · leading case: Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 2× “While we held that the agreement *63 did not contain "highly personal and intimate information," we recognized, "[a]dditionally, if [the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs] had decided to hold a formal disciplinary hearing before the Contractor's Licensing Board, this…”
Painting Indus. of Hawaii Mkt. Recovery Fund v. Alm, 746 P.2d 79 (Haw. 1987). · cites it 2× “Additionally, if the DCCA had decided to hold a formal disciplinary hearing before the Contractor’s Licensing Board, this information would have been public under HRS § 444-18. Thus, we conclude that the settlement agreement is not within the protection of HRS § 92E-1.”
Otani v. Contractors License Bd., 466 P.2d 1009 (Haw. 1970). · cites it 2× “HRS § 444-18 provides that in every case where it is proposed to refuse to grant a license to an applicant, the Board shall give notice and hearing; and that whenever possible, the hearing shall be held on the island where the applicant resides.”
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu. (Haw. 2019). · cites it 2× “While we held that the agreement did not contain “highly personal and intimate information,” we recognized, “[a]dditionally, if [the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs] had decided to hold a formal disciplinary hearing before the Contractor’s Licensing Board, this…”
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.