Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-6 (2026)

  Appellate court costs

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

     §607-6  Appellate court costs.  (a)  All proceedings in the courts of appeal shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court.  Upon the filing of any appeal or the institution of any original suit, action, or other proceeding in the supreme court or the intermediate appellate court, there shall be paid by the person filing such appeal, or instituting the suit, action, or other proceeding, as appellate court costs, the sum of $100.  For purposes of this section, applications for transfer and applications for writs of certiorari to the intermediate appellate court shall not be deemed other proceedings.

     (b)  In addition to the costs of court enumerated in subsection (a), the clerk of the supreme court shall charge and collect, for miscellaneous services performed by the clerk, the following sums:

     (1)  For filing any paper not in a pending suit, action, or other proceeding................................... $3

     (2)  For issuing any subpoena, for each witness to be served.................................................. $3

     (3)  All amounts necessary to cover actual costs or disbursements for printing, publishing, or posting notice, service fees, mileage charges, or other services actually performed. [RL 1935, pt of §3791; am L 1939, c 19, pt of §1; am L 1941, c 229, pt of §1; RL 1945, §9746; RL 1955, §219-6; am L 1957, c 316, §23; HRS §607-6; am L 1972, c 88, §5(k); am L 1974, c 145, §8; am L 1979, c 111, §5(2); gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 44, §1; am L 1998, c 128, §4; am L 2004, c 3, §2 and c 202, §64; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Costs, see HRAP rules 39, 45(e).

 

Case Notes

 

  Filing of bond to cover further cost must be in time.  5 H. 591 (1886).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2010–2010 · leading case: State v. Maugaotega (Haw. App. 2010).
State v. Maugaotega (Haw. App. 2010). “For Count l, the Amended Judgment sets forth § 607-6, which is the wrong HRS statute, instead of § 706-656, the correct statute; the circuit court is hereby ordered to file a Second Amended Judgment setting forth, nunc pro tunc, the correct HRS statute (§ 706-656) under which…”
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.