Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-17 (2026)

  REPEALED

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

     §607-17  REPEALED.  L 1993, c 200, §2.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 575 P.2d 869 (Haw. 1978).
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 575 P.2d 869 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 16× “" Such an agreement to pay attorney's fees is contemplated and governed by the provisions of HRS § 607-17 which provides as follows: *879 Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, where an action is instituted in the district or circuit court on a promissory note or other…”
Kona Vill. Realty, Inc. v. Sunstone Realty Partners, XIV, LLC, 236 P.3d 456 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 28× “In doing so it is not your Committee's intention to expand the category of cases in which attorneys' fees are awarded, but to bring uniformity to the procedure for taxing attorneys' fees in the type of cases described for this measure. Further, your Committee finds that an…”
Wohlschlegel v. Uhlmann-Kihei, Inc., 662 P.2d 505 (Haw. App. 1983). · cites it 30× “] Being the successful parties in the lawsuit, plaintiffs were entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee under HRS § 607-17. *137 Appellants argue that (1) HRS § 607-17 “only applies to actions on contracts, in writing, signed by the parties to be charged”; (2) appellants never…”
Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 839 P.2d 10 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 9× “37 by concluding that attorney’s fees awardable to WBIC, as the prevailing party on Amfac’s complaint for declaratory judgment, were unconstrained by the twenty-five percent limit set forth in HRS § 607-17 (1985). We disagree. HRS § 607-17 provides in relevant part: Any other…”
Smothers v. Renander, 633 P.2d 556 (Haw. App. 1981). · cites it 15× “HRS § 607-17 (1976) 3 (suit on a promissory note or other contract in writing) is not applicable because the May 1, 1976, letter did not provide for attorney’s fees.”
Piedvache v. Knabusch, 962 P.2d 374 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 29× “” As Rodney suggests, the statute does not expressly instruct the courts as to how to calculate an award of attorney’s fees when no precise monetary amount is sought in the pleadings.”
Azer v. Myers, 795 P.2d 853 (Haw. 1990). · cites it 16× “Brokers contend that HRS § 607-17 does not apply because: 1) the listing agreement obligates Brokers to diligently pursue the procurement of a tenant; 2) the listing agreement authorizes reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party where the lessor or broker commences…”
Schubert v. Saluni, 855 P.2d 858 (Haw. App. 1993). · cites it 31× “HRS § 607-17 (1985) provides in part as follows: Attorney’s fees when provided for in promissory notes, etc.”
Ai v. Frank Huff Agency, Ltd., 607 P.2d 1304 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs based Count I on the 25% limitation on attorney’s fees against a debtor permitted only after the fifing of suit under HRS § 443-23, 3 and the total statutory *610 disallowance of attorney’s fees under HRS § 607-17 where an instrument in writing which provides for…”
Blair v. Ing, 31 P.3d 184 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 4× “In 1993, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) relied upon Yoshida in construing HRS § 607-17. 5 See Schubert v. Saluni, 9 Haw.”
Thornley v. Sanchez, 857 P.2d 601 (Haw. App. 1993). · cites it 21× “Finally, Defendant argues that the trial court failed to apply or misapplied the mandatory statutory limitation on attorney’s fees set forth in HRS § 607-17. *612 DISCUSSION I. Necessary and Indispensable Parties Defendant argues that Sanchez was an indispensable party in this…”
Forbes v. Hawaii Culinary Corp., 946 P.2d 609 (Haw. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “2d 634, 639 (1983) (finding that HRS § 607-17, which was essentially incorporated into HRS § 607-14, as amended by Act 200, § 1, 1993 Haw.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-17(1976) — 1 case
Strouss v. Simmons, 657 P.2d 1004 (Haw. 1982).
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.