Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-33 (2026)

Service in cases of operation of motor vehicles

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§634-33 Service in cases of operation of motor vehicles. [(a)] The use and operation by any person, whether a resident or a nonresident of the State, of any motor vehicle upon a public highway in this State shall subject the person to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State in any action or proceeding against the person growing out of any accident or collision in which the person and the motor vehicle so used and operated may be involved. The use and operation of the motor vehicle is deemed a signification of the person's agreement that any summons against the person which is served is of the same legal force and validity as if served upon the person personally within this State, whether the person is a nonresident of this State or at the time a cause of action arises is a resident of this State but subsequently becomes a nonresident of this State. Service of such summons is to be made as provided by section 634-36, if the defendant cannot be found in the State.

[(b)] This section shall not be construed as repealing or amending any other provision of law relating to the service of process nor as establishing an exclusive method of service of process in cases to which this section may apply. [L 1953, c 167, §§1, 2; RL 1955, §230-33; am L 1959, c 15, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §15; am L 1963, c 114, §3; am L 1965, c 86, §1; HRS §634-69; am L 1972, c 89, §2A(l); ren HRS §634-33; am L 1982, c 204, §8; am L 1983, c 124, §17; am L 1984, c 209, §2; gen ch 1985]

Cross References

Nonresident violator compact, see chapter 291A.

Case Notes

Section 657-18 did not apply to toll the no-fault statute of limitations where a nonresident motorist defendant was at all times subject to the jurisdiction of Hawaii's courts and amenable to service of process under its long-arm statutes as set forth in §634-36 and this section. 89 H. 1, 967 P.2d 1059 (1998).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2002 · leading case: Shin v. McLaughlin, 967 P.2d 1059 (Haw. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shin v. McLaughlin, 967 P.2d 1059 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 13× “Assuming, without deciding, that HRS § 657-18 applies to all claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, we hold that HRS § 657-18 does not apply to toll the no-fault statute of limitations where a nonresident motorist defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of our courts…”

Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 4× “Construing HRS § 657-18 “in conjunction with our long-arm statutes prescribed in HRS §§ 634-33 and 634-36,” id. at 5-6, 967 P.”

First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 998 P.2d 55 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Without deciding whether HRS § 657-18 even applied to all claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the supreme court held that “HRS § 657-18 does not apply to toll the no-fault statute of limitations where a nonresident motorist defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of…”

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.