§632-3 Further relief upon judgment.
Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted whenever
necessary or proper, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse
party whose rights have been adjudicated by the judgment. [L 1921, c 162, §3;
RL 1925, §2920; RL 1935, §4222; RL 1945, §9973; RL 1955, §228-3; HRS §632-3; am
L 1972, c 89, §1(e)]
Case Notes
Cited as authorizing the grant of ancillary equitable relief,
including relief from forfeiture of lease for breach of covenant. 58 H. 606,
575 P.2d 869 (1978).
Where the court did not adjudicate the rights of any party
because the declaratory judgment was voluntarily dismissed, section
inapplicable. 103 H. 26, 79 P.3d 119 (2003).
Where the recipients of the contracts awarded under §3-122-166
(repealed), Hawaii administrative rules, were not made parties to the case and,
therefore, their rights were not "adjudicated by the judgment", the
circuit court could not have invalidated the contracts as "ancillary
relief". 132 H. 333, 322 P.3d 228 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hinshaw, 79 P.3d 119 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 24× “HRS § 632-3 Skydive is not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to HRS § 632-3.”
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 575 P.2d 869 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 8× “It does contend, however, that even if it had breached its non-assignment covenant, the trial court was nevertheless empowered to grant the lessee relief from forfeiture of the lease.”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 14× “24 HRS § 632-3 provides that “[f]urther relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted whenever necessary or proper, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the judgment.”
Tax Found. of Hawaiʻi v. State., 439 P.3d 127 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" The Chapter has four sections, HRS § 632-1 relating to "[j]urisdiction; controversies subject to," HRS § 632-2 (2016) relating to "[a]ppeals," HRS § 632-3 (2016) relating to "[f]urther relief upon judgment," and HRS § 632-6 (2016) relating to "[p]rovisions, remedial.”
Ching v. Case, 449 P.3d 1146 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 4× “13 In reply, the Plaintiffs contended that the State was incorrect in asserting that the duty of the United States to clean the property did not arise until the lease expired because Paragraph 9 of the lease required the United States to clean the land during the…”
Costa v. Sunn, 697 P.2d 43 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 6× “(b) The court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, or was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.”
Queen Emma Found. v. Tatibouet, 236 P.3d 1236 (Haw. App. 2010).
“As the basis for his "issue preclusion” argument, Tatibouet cites Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 632-3 (1993), which provides: Further relief upon judgment.”
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.