§602-11 Rules. The supreme court shall
have power to promulgate rules in all civil and criminal cases for all courts
relating to process, practices, procedure and appeals, which shall have the
force and effect of law. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify the
substantive rights of any litigant, nor the jurisdiction of any of the courts,
nor affect any statute of limitations.
Whenever in a statute it is provided that the
statute is applicable "except as otherwise provided," or words to
that effect, these words shall be deemed to refer to provisions of the rules of
court as well as other statutory provisions. [L 1939, c 215, §1; RL 1945,
§9614; RL 1955, §214-14; HRS §602-21; am L 1972, c 88, §2(g); ren L 1979, c
111, pt of §2]
Cross References
Constitutional provision, see Const. art. VI, §7.
Rules of Court
See Rules of the Supreme Court; Hawaii Rules of Professional
Conduct; Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct; Hawaii Rules of Appellate
Procedure; Rules of the Intermediate Court of Appeals; Hawaii Rules of Civil
Procedure; Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure; Rules of the Circuit Courts; Hawaii
Arbitration Rules; Rules of the District Courts; District Court Rules of Civil
Procedure; Rules of the Small Claims Division; Rules of the Family Court; Rules
of the Tax Appeal Court; Rules of the Land Court; Hawaii Civil Traffic Rules;
Hawaii Probate Rules; Rules Governing Court Reporting; Hawaii Court Records
Rules; Hawaii Electronic Filing and Service Rules.
Law Journals and Reviews
A Piece of Mind for Peace of Mind: Federal Discoverability
of Opinion Work Product Provided to Expert Witnesses and Its Implications in
Hawai‘i. 24 UH L. Rev. 859 (2002).
Electronic Discovery: A Call for a New Rules Regime for the Hawai‘i
Courts. 32 UH L. Rev. 153 (2009).
Case Notes
Reasonable compliance with a rule must be required. 20 H. 39
(1910); 24 H. 711, 713 (1919); 29 H. 802, 803 (1927).
The responsibility of the court to require such compliance is
secondary to the duty of the court to maintain the integrity of stipulations
approved by and filed with the court. 24 H. 655, 657 (1919).
Family court rules have force and effect of law. 61 H. 167,
598 P.2d 176 (1979).
Cited: 48 H. 290, 300, 401 P.2d 449 (1965).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Obrero., 517 P.3d 755 (Haw. 2022).
State v. Obrero., 517 P.3d 755 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 10× “The State notes that under HRS § 602-11 the HRPP have the force and effect of law.”
State v. Arceo, 928 P.2d 843 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “" HRS § 602-11 (1993) contains the identical language, except that it deletes any reference to "regulations.”
In the Interest of Doe, 883 P.2d 30 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Article VI, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution provides that “[t]he supreme court shall have power to promulgate rules and regulations in all civil and criminal cases for all courts relating to process, practice, procedure and appeals, which shall have the force and effect of…”
State v. Jackson, 912 P.2d 71 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Our role in the criminal justice system, both when we decide cases on appeal and when we promulgate rules pursuant to our statutory authority, see HRS § 602-11 (1993), is primarily to ensure that the process is fair.”
Schwab v. Ariyoshi, 555 P.2d 1329 (Haw. 1976).
· cites it 7× “Movants suggest that substitutes be designated from among the retired justices of this court, as authorized by HRS § 602-11. However, no retired justice may be so designated who is actively engaged in the practice of law or has attained the age of seventy years.”
Meindl v. Genesys Pac. Tech., Inc., 18 P.3d 895 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” However, pursuant to HRS § 602-11 (1985), “[s]uch rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of any litiga,nt, nor the jurisdiction of any of the courts, nor affect any statute of limitations.”
State v. Merino, 915 P.2d 672 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 602-11 (1993) provides in relevant part that "[t]he supreme court shall have power to promulgate rules in all civil and criminal cases for all courts relating to process, practices, procedure and appeals, which shall have the force and effect of law.”
Bacon v. Karlin, 727 P.2d 1127 (Haw. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2 HRS § 602-11 (Supp. 1984) reads in part: Rules.”
Cox v. Cox., 382 P.3d 288 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “HFCR Rule 68 Abridges Substantive Rights The Hawaii Constitution accords this court the “power to promulgate rules and regulations in all civil and criminal cases for all courts relating to process, practice, procedure and appeals, which shall have the force and effect of law.”
Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn, 200 P.3d 370 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” However, pursuant to HRS § 602-11 (1985), “such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor the jurisdiction of any of the courts, nor affect any statute of limitation.”
Brutsch v. Brutsch., 390 P.3d 1260 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Second, we concluded that HFCR Rule 68 abridges substantive rights of parties in violation of HRS § 602-11 (1985), which prohibits rules of practice and procedure from modifying the substantive rights of litigants, as the rule contravened the dictates of the governing statute,…”
State v. Vai Hapouli Lei, 21 P.3d 880 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “’ ” (Quoting HRS § 602-11 (1985).)). Thus, having considered the contrasting case law on conditional pleas, we hold that the HRPP Rule 11(a)(2) writing requirement is not jurisdictional in nature and may be waived where the purposes of the writing requirement can be satisfied…”
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.