[§634-35] Acts submitting to jurisdiction.
(a) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in
person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby
submits such person, and, if an individual, the person's personal
representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause
of action arising from the doing of any of the acts:
(1) The transaction of any business within this
State;
(2) The commission of a tortious act within this
State;
(3) The ownership, use, or possession of any real
estate situated in this State;
(4) Contracting to insure any person, property, or
risk located within this State at the time of contracting.
(b) Service of process upon any person who is
subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, as provided in this
section, may be made as provided by section 634-36, if the person cannot be
found in the State, with the same force and effect as though summons had been
personally served within this State.
(c) Only causes of action arising from acts
enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which
jurisdiction over the defendant is based upon this section.
(d) Nothing herein contained limits or affects
the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereafter provided by
law. [L 1965, c 134, §1; Supp, §230-41.5; HRS §634-71; am L 1972, c 89, §2A(n);
ren HRS §634-35; gen ch 1985]
Rules of Court
See HRCP rule 4.
Law Journals and Reviews
Jurisdiction Under Hawaii's New "Long Arm"
Statute. 4 HBJ, no. 1, at 4 (1966).
Products Liability in Hawaii. 14 HBJ, no. 4, at 127 (1979).
Case Notes
Negligent manufacture outside the State, resulting in injury
in the State, constituted "commission of tortious act within the
State". 417 F.2d 231 (1969).
Requirement of minimum contact to satisfy due process
discussed in holding manufacturer in England subject to state jurisdiction.
417 F.2d 231 (1969).
Under both the "transacting business" and
"tortious act" clauses of this section, the cause of action must
relate to the defendant's contacts in the State. 558 F.2d 948 (1977).
Does not express "strong policy" that insurance
cases must be tried in State despite contrary insurance contract clause. 738
F.2d 1455 (1984).
Definition of term "doing or carrying on business"
in Hawaii statute relating to foreign corporations and filing does not restrict
or limit definition or scope of term "transaction of business" in
statute. 253 F. Supp. 588 (1966).
Sufficiency of contact with State for application of
statute. 290 F. Supp. 848 (1968).
Plaintiff made a prima facie case that the court had specific
personal jurisdiction over defendant; the court's exercise of personal
jurisdiction would comport with due process and defendant's contacts with
Hawaii, as alleged and evidenced by plaintiff, satisfied Hawaii's long-arm
statute. 664 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (2008).
In an action that arose from a series of agreements among
various parties related to a joint venture in New Zealand, defendant, a
director of an investment business in New Zealand, claimed that defendant was
not subject to the jurisdiction of State courts. However, district court found
that plaintiffs had demonstrated the requisite minimum contacts to exercise
specific jurisdiction over their tort claims. Defendant had twice traveled to
the State to make affirmative representations to residents, finalize
transactions, and advance the process whereby residents provided defendant with
financial benefits. 431 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (2020).
Prerequisites of minimum contacts to satisfy due process
discussed. 54 H. 597, 513 P.2d 165 (1973).
Minimum contact requirement held not met in a medical
malpractice action. 56 H. 306, 536 P.2d 568 (1975).
Tort is "committed in this State" when the injury
occurs in this State. 56 H. 306, 536 P.2d 568 (1975).
Facts held sufficient to constitute transaction of business
in State. 59 H. 189, 579 P.2d 99 (1978).
Establishment of contractual relationship through the mail;
"transaction of business"; minimum contact. 61 H. 644, 608 P.2d 394
(1980).
Expands jurisdiction of Hawaii's courts to extent permitted
by due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 61 H. 644, 608 P.2d 394
(1980).
Plaintiff had not demonstrated that defendant was
"transacting business" in Hawaii; plaintiff sufficiently alleged a
prima facie case that defendant committed a "tortious act within this
State" for purposes of subsection (a)(2); plaintiff sufficiently alleged a
tortious breach of contract to satisfy demands of due process. 76 H. 323, 876
P.2d 1291 (1994).
Defendant California theme park's advertising in a national
magazine and on an internet website was not "the transaction of any
business within this State"; also, where plaintiff's injury occurred on a
roller coaster ride in defendant's California theme park, the alleged tortious
acts occurred in California; thus, trial court lacked personal jurisdiction
over defendants under this section. 102 H. 203, 74 P.3d 26 (2003).
Notes of Decisions
Norris v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 74 P.3d 26 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 64× “and was admitted to a hospital; (5) on July 10, 1998, a subdural hematoma was removed from Plaintiff's cranium; (6) on or about July 16, 1998, Plaintiff's surgeon opined that the injury was caused by Plaintiff's ride on the Viper; (7) Plaintiff's injuries and damages occurred in…”
Cowan v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 608 P.2d 394 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 34× “Prior to trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction contending that they lacked the requisite “minimum contacts” with the State necessary to impose jurisdiction under Hawaii’s long-arm statute, HRS § 634-35 (1976). 2 It is undisputed that Ardell…”
Womble Bond Dickinson v. Kim, 537 P.3d 1154 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Playing tag would seem to unravel long-arm statutes like HRS § 634-35. A state registration statute may preserve 9 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** jurisdiction over corporations conducting business in a state.”
Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 876 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1994).
· cites it 17× “In order to defeat NATCO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Shaw need make only a prima facie showing that: (1) NATCO’s activities in Hawai'i fall into a category specified by Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 634-35; and (2) the…”
Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 13× “In the instant case, Defendant-Appellee Ryu Muranaka (Defendant) was amenable to service under HRS §§ 634-35 and 634-36 and under the Hague Convention, when that treaty applied.”
Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd, 518 P.3d 1169 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 8× “Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, does Hawaii’s general long-arm statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35 , permit a Hawaii court to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? We accepted these questions under…”
Pure, Ltd. v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Haw. 1988).
· cites it 15× “” Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 634-35, provides in pertinent part: Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, the…”
Rearden Fam. Trust v. Wisenbaker, 65 P.3d 1029 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 6× “]” Defendant apparently believed that Plaintiffs claimed jurisdiction under HRS § 634-23 and, accordingly, contested service under the relevant service statute for HRS § 634-23.”
First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 998 P.2d 55 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “2d 1059 (1998), that the tolling provisions of HRS § 657-18 do not apply to this particular case because Clarence was subject to the jurisdiction of the Hawai'i courts and amenable to service of process under Hawaii’s long-arm statutes, as set forth in HRS §§ 634-35 (1993) and…”
Robinson Corp. v. Auto-Owners Ins., 304 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Haw. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Because the Court sits in diversity and there is no applicable federal statute, Hawaii's long-arm statute, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 634-35, controls. See, e.”
Television Events & Mktg., Inc. v. Amcon Distrib. Co., 416 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Haw. 2006).
· cites it 6× “for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction To subject a nonresident defendant to suit, both the long-arm statute of the state in which the Court sits and constitutional due process requirements must be satisfied.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(1)(b) — 1 case
Cowan v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 608 P.2d 394 (Haw. 1980).
“Prior to trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction contending that they lacked the requisite “minimum contacts” with the State necessary to impose jurisdiction under Hawaii’s long-arm statute, HRS § 634-35 (1976). 2 It is undisputed that Ardell…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(a) — 6 cases
Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 876 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1994).
“In order to defeat NATCO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Shaw need make only a prima facie showing that: (1) NATCO’s activities in Hawai'i fall into a category specified by Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 634-35; and (2) the…”
Pure, Ltd. v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Haw. 1988).
“” Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 634-35, provides in pertinent part: Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(a)(1) — 7 cases
Norris v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 74 P.3d 26 (Haw. 2003).
“and was admitted to a hospital; (5) on July 10, 1998, a subdural hematoma was removed from Plaintiff's cranium; (6) on or about July 16, 1998, Plaintiff's surgeon opined that the injury was caused by Plaintiff's ride on the Viper; (7) Plaintiff's injuries and damages occurred in…”
Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 876 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1994).
“In order to defeat NATCO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Shaw need make only a prima facie showing that: (1) NATCO’s activities in Hawai'i fall into a category specified by Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 634-35; and (2) the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(a)(2) — 7 cases
Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 876 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1994).
“In order to defeat NATCO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Shaw need make only a prima facie showing that: (1) NATCO’s activities in Hawai'i fall into a category specified by Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 634-35; and (2) the…”
Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002).
“In the instant case, Defendant-Appellee Ryu Muranaka (Defendant) was amenable to service under HRS §§ 634-35 and 634-36 and under the Hague Convention, when that treaty applied.”
Norris v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 74 P.3d 26 (Haw. 2003).
“and was admitted to a hospital; (5) on July 10, 1998, a subdural hematoma was removed from Plaintiff's cranium; (6) on or about July 16, 1998, Plaintiff's surgeon opined that the injury was caused by Plaintiff's ride on the Viper; (7) Plaintiff's injuries and damages occurred in…”
Pure, Ltd. v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Haw. 1988).
“” Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 634-35, provides in pertinent part: Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, the…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(a)(l) — 1 case
Cowan v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 608 P.2d 394 (Haw. 1980).
“Prior to trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction contending that they lacked the requisite “minimum contacts” with the State necessary to impose jurisdiction under Hawaii’s long-arm statute, HRS § 634-35 (1976). 2 It is undisputed that Ardell…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(aXl) — 1 case
Cowan v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 608 P.2d 394 (Haw. 1980).
“Prior to trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction contending that they lacked the requisite “minimum contacts” with the State necessary to impose jurisdiction under Hawaii’s long-arm statute, HRS § 634-35 (1976). 2 It is undisputed that Ardell…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-35(c) — 2 cases
Cowan v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 608 P.2d 394 (Haw. 1980).
“Prior to trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction contending that they lacked the requisite “minimum contacts” with the State necessary to impose jurisdiction under Hawaii’s long-arm statute, HRS § 634-35 (1976). 2 It is undisputed that Ardell…”
Shaw v. North Am. Title Co., 876 P.2d 1291 (Haw. 1994).
“In order to defeat NATCO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Shaw need make only a prima facie showing that: (1) NATCO’s activities in Hawai'i fall into a category specified by Hawaii’s long-arm statute, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 634-35; and (2) the…”
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.