Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-22 (2026)

Return

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§634-22 Return. In all cases where any process or order of a court is served by any officer of the court or of the police force or the sheriff, a deputy sheriff, an independent civil process server from the department of law enforcement's list under section 353C-11, or any investigator appointed and commissioned by the director of commerce and consumer affairs pursuant to section 26-9(j), a record thereof shall be endorsed upon the back of the process, complaint, order, or citation. The record shall state the name of the person served and the time and place of service and shall be signed by the sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, independent civil process server, or investigator making the service. If the sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, independent civil process server, or investigator fails to make service, the sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, independent civil process server, or investigator in like manner, shall endorse the reason for the sheriff's, deputy sheriff's, police officer's, independent civil process server's, or investigator's failure and sign this record. When service is made by a person specially appointed by the court, or an independent civil process server, that person shall make declaration or affidavit of that service.

The record, declaration, or affidavit shall be prima facie evidence of all it contains, and no further proof thereof shall be required unless either party desires to examine the sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, independent civil process server, or investigator making service, in which case the sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, independent civil process server, or investigator shall be notified to appear for examination. [L 1888, c 57; RL 1925, §2342; RL 1935, §4078; RL 1945, §10060; RL 1955, §230-30; am L 1963, c 85, §3; HRS §634-58; am L 1972, c 89, §2A(e); ren HRS §634-22; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 123, §3 and c 211, §10; am L 1990, c 281, §11; am L 1993, c 173, §3; am L 1994, c 9, §2; am L 2012, c 142, §8; am L 2013, c 116, §§10, 25(9); am L 2015, c 101, §4; am L 2021, c 41, §10; am L 2022, c 278, §17]

Note

The repeal and reenactment note in the main volume took effect on June 30, 2020, pursuant to L 2015, c 101, §4.

Rules of Court

As to circuit courts, see HRCP rule 4(g), (h); as to district courts, see DCRCP rule 4(g), (h); as to family courts, see HFCR rule 4.

Probate proceedings, see HPR rule 8.

Case Notes

Officers who may serve. 15 H. 486 (1904).

Record sufficient evidence. 16 H. 427 (1905).

Return not invalidated by failure to show that it was made as required by statute. Presumption of validity in absence of contrary showing. 19 H. 494 (1909).

Conflicting interests of serving officers. 40 H. 279 (1953).

Return is prima facie evidence of all it contains. 48 H. 306, 402 P.2d 440 (1965).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe, Sr., 528 P.3d 222 (Haw. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe, Sr., 528 P.3d 222 (Haw. 2023). · cites it 2× “35:81] Furthermore, had Namahoe wanted to contest the signature, HRS § 634-22 (2013) provides the means for him to examine the process server.”

James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe, Sr., 506 P.3d 883 (Haw. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “It appears from the record that Namahoe was personally served with the Summons and Complaint in accordance with HRCP Rule 4(a) & (d)(1)(A), and the Return and Acknowledgment of Service was filed with the Circuit Court in accordance with HRCP Rule (4)(g).”

Cannon v. Dodd, 546 P.3d 1225 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “At the time of the alleged service of the Complaint and the First Amended Complaint, HRS § 634-22 stated in relevant part that "[t]he [return of service] .”

Impact Fin. Servs. v. Kam'aina Termite & Pest Control, Inc., 192 P.3d 612 (Haw. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “In this case, Pieper's Return of Service serves as prima facie evidence of the events which occurred at the time of service: The [return of service] . . . shall be prima facie evidence of all it contains, and no further proof thereof shall be required unless either party desires…”

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.