§602-57 Jurisdiction. Notwithstanding
any other law to the contrary, the intermediate appellate court shall have
jurisdiction, subject to transfer as provided in section 602-58 or review on
application for a writ of certiorari as provided in section 602-59:
(1) To hear and determine appeals from any court or
agency when appeals are allowed by law;
(2) To entertain, in its discretion, any case
submitted without suit when there is a question of law that could be the
subject of a civil action or proceeding in the circuit court, or tax appeal
court, and the parties agree upon the facts upon which the controversy depends;
and
(3) To make or issue any order or writ necessary or
appropriate in the aid of its jurisdiction, and in such case, any judge may
issue a writ or an order to show cause returnable before the court. [L 1979, c
111, pt of §3; am L 2004, c 202, §57; am L 2006, c 94, §1 and c 145, §1; am L
2010, c 109, §1]
Law Journals and Reviews
The Lum Court, Land Use, and the Environment: A Survey of
Hawai`i Case Law 1983 to 1991. 14 UH L. Rev. 119 (1992).
The Development of Hawai`i's Appellate Courts: An
Organizational Perspective. 33 UH L. Rev. 875 (2011).
Case Notes
Section 174C-60 is inconsistent with and cannot stand
together with §602-5 and this section, as amended by Act 202, L 2004, and was
deemed amended by implication, effective July 1, 2006, to authorize appeals
from the water commission to the intermediate appellate court, not to the
supreme court. 113 H. 52, 147 P.3d 836 (2006).
Where bankruptcy court remanded the entirety of the adversary
proceeding to the circuit court, and petitioner timely appealed to the
appellate court the bankruptcy court's good faith determination which had not
been modified or set aside by the circuit court and thus remained in effect,
since this section gives the appellate court jurisdiction over appeals from the
circuit court that are "allowed by law", and §663-15.5(e) authorized
an appeal from the good faith determination, the appellate court had jurisdiction
over the appeal. 125 H. 186, 256 P.3d 694 (2011).
Where defendant filed notice of appeal pursuant to §641-1(a),
the intermediate court of appeals erred in failing to exercise its authority
under paragraph (3) to order the circuit court to enter an appealable final
judgment. 140 H. 197, 398 P.3d 786 (2017).
The intermediate court of appeals did not err in issuing a
partial dismissal order instead of wholly denying defendant's motion to dismiss
and addressing any partial dismissal in its summary disposition order (SDO),
because: (1) it has the power under §602-57(3) "[t]o make or issue any
order . . . necessary or appropriate in the aid of its jurisdiction . .
."; and (2) it referred to its partial dismissal in its subsequent SDO.
140 H. 226, 398 P.3d 815 (2016).
Court will not decide moot question. 1 H. App. 491, 620 P.2d
765 (1980).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Chang v. Buffington, 256 P.3d 694 (Haw. 2011).
Chang v. Buffington, 256 P.3d 694 (Haw. 2011).
· cites it 74× “§ 158 authorizes appeals from a bankruptcy court order to a federal district court, a federal bankruptcy appellate panel, or a federal court of appeals and does not authorize an appeal to a state appellate court; and (2) "it is reasonable to infer from the plain language of HRS…”
Waikiki v. Ho'omaka Vill. Ass'n of Apt. Owners, 398 P.3d 786 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 12× “uestion—Did the ICA gravely err by dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction rather than ordering the circuit court to file a final judgment? Jhun argues that her notice of appeal was premature, that she addressed the potential jurisdictional defect in her jurisdictional…”
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 8× “or certiorari from the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal, this court has jurisdiction to review both the ICA’s Partial Dismissal Order and SDO which underpin the Judgment on Appeal;3 (2) the ICA did not err in issuing its Partial Dismissal Order, rather than wholly denying Fund’s Motion…”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 4× “”); HRS § 602-57 (giving the ICA jurisdiction to hear appeals from “any court or agency when appeals are allowed by law” subject to “transfer .”
State v. Pratt, 277 P.3d 300 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, HRS § 602-57 (1993) provides that the ICA "shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme court on all matters set out in section 602-5(1) through (7).”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “5 HRS § 602-57 (Supp. 1982) provides that this court “shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme court on all matters set out in section 602-5(1) through (7), subject to assignment of cases set out in section 602-5(8).”
State v. Arlt, 833 P.2d 902 (Haw. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In Hawai‘i, the Intermediate Court of Appeals, pursuant to HRS § 602-57, has concurrent jurisdiction with the supreme court on matters set forth in HRS § 602-5(1) through (7) (1985).”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “]” HRS § 602-57(1) (Supp. 2005). Therefore, “both HRS §§ 271-32(e) and -33 allow a party to appeal from a final PUC order, provided that the party has filed (and the PUC has denied) a motion for reconsideration of the PUC’s order[.”
Okutsu v. State., 528 P.3d 956 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “On October 2, 2017, the court entered the "Order Granting Defendant State of Hawaii's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking Damages[.]" This appeal followed.”
Brodie v. Hawaii Auto. Retail Gasoline Dealers Ass'n, 655 P.2d 863 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 2× “] HRS § 602-57 (1981 Supp.) empowers the intermediate court of appeals, pursuant to HRS § 602-5(7), “[t]o make and award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-57(1) — 9 cases
Chang v. Buffington, 256 P.3d 694 (Haw. 2011).
“§ 158 authorizes appeals from a bankruptcy court order to a federal district court, a federal bankruptcy appellate panel, or a federal court of appeals and does not authorize an appeal to a state appellate court; and (2) "it is reasonable to infer from the plain language of HRS…”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
“”); HRS § 602-57 (giving the ICA jurisdiction to hear appeals from “any court or agency when appeals are allowed by law” subject to “transfer .”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006).
“]” HRS § 602-57(1) (Supp. 2005). Therefore, “both HRS §§ 271-32(e) and -33 allow a party to appeal from a final PUC order, provided that the party has filed (and the PUC has denied) a motion for reconsideration of the PUC’s order[.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-57(3) — 15 cases
Waikiki v. Ho'omaka Vill. Ass'n of Apt. Owners, 398 P.3d 786 (Haw. 2017).
“uestion—Did the ICA gravely err by dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction rather than ordering the circuit court to file a final judgment? Jhun argues that her notice of appeal was premature, that she addressed the potential jurisdictional defect in her jurisdictional…”
Waltrip v. TS Enter., Inc., 398 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2016).
“or certiorari from the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal, this court has jurisdiction to review both the ICA’s Partial Dismissal Order and SDO which underpin the Judgment on Appeal;3 (2) the ICA did not err in issuing its Partial Dismissal Order, rather than wholly denying Fund’s Motion…”
Okutsu v. State., 528 P.3d 956 (Haw. App. 2023).
“On October 2, 2017, the court entered the "Order Granting Defendant State of Hawaii's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Seeking Damages[.]" This appeal followed.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-57(a) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-57(l) — 4 cases
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.