Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 635
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-3 (2025)

  Dismissal for want of prosecution

✓ laws through the 2025 session: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §635-3  Dismissal for want of prosecution.  The court may dismiss any action for want of prosecution after due notice to the claimants whenever claimants have failed to bring such action to trial within a period established by rule of court.  Prior to dismissal of any action for want of prosecution, a court shall have adopted, promulgated, and published a rule or rules of court providing circumstances in which a claimant may seek relief from the judgment or order and such other safeguards as may be necessary. [CC 1859, §1162; RL 1925, §2391; RL 1935, §4106; am L 1937, c 117, §1; am L 1939, c 145, §1; am L Sp 1941, c 56, §1; RL 1945, §10104; RL 1955, §231-4; HRS §635-3; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(a)]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Dismissal, see HRCP rule 41(b).

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Remedies to obtain dismissal for want of prosecution discussed.  3 HBJ, no. 3, at 2 (1965).

 

Case Notes

 

  Defendant's joining in stipulation to remove a cause from trial calendar is action of the "defendant to delay or postpone trial".  45 H. 165, 363 P.2d 968 (1961).

  Question as to continued effectiveness of section in view of HRCP 41(b) raised but not decided.  45 H. 165, 363 P.2d 968 (1961).

  Matter of continuance in view of public climate is within court's discretion.  45 H. 478, 370 P.2d 739 (1962).

  Application of six-year provision.  48 H. 152, 397 P.2d 593 (1964); 48 H. 290, 401 P.2d 449 (1965); 48 H. 303, 401 P.2d 456 (1965).

  Factors to be considered in the exercise of the discretion to dismiss.  60 H. 125, 588 P.2d 416 (1978).

 

Cases prior to adoption of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure.

  Notice of motion, how made.  1 H. 14 (1847).

  Rules for postponement of trial laid down.  1 H. 74 (1852).

  Granting or refusing continuance at discretion of court.  7 H. 211 (1888); 8 H. 466 (1892); 14 H. 313 (1902); 29 H. 434 (1926); 33 H. 113 (1934); 34 H. 390 (1937).

  Affidavit in support of continuance because of absence of witness should set out facts the witness is expected to prove.  8 H. 466 (1892).

  Cited:  24 H. 97, 107 (1917); 33 H. 432, 439 (1935).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Erum v. Llego., 465 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Erum v. Llego., 465 P.3d 815 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 3× “30 The 26 HRS § 635-3 provides in relevant part as follows: “The court may dismiss any action for want of prosecution after due notice to the claimants whenever claimants have failed to bring such action to trial within a period established by rule of court.”
Compass Dev., Inc. v. Blevins, 876 P.2d 1335 (Haw. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “HRS § 635-3 authorizes the court to “dismiss any action for want of prosecution after due notice to the claimants whenever [the] claimants have failed to bring the action to trial within a period established by rule of court.”
Lim v. Harvis Constr., Inc., 647 P.2d 290 (Haw. 1982). “While the procedure, followed in this case, of ex parte writing to the clerk of court would be appropriate under Rule 12(f), HCCR, it is not appropriate under Rule 41(b), HRCP. Furthermore, we cannot sanction the court’s entering an order of dismissal without notice *73 and…”
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.