Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-2 (2026)

Review on and disposition of appeal

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§641-2 Review on and disposition of appeal. [(a)] In case of appeal from a judgment, order, or decree of a circuit or district court or the land court, in a civil matter, the appellate court shall have power to review, reverse, affirm, amend, or modify such judgment, order, or decree, in whole or in part, as to any or all of the parties. It may enter an amended or modified judgment, order, or decree, or may remand the case to the trial court for the entry of the same or for other or further proceedings, as in its opinion the facts and law warrant. Any judgment, order, or decree entered by the appellate court may be enforced by it or remitted for enforcement by the trial court.

[(b)] Every appeal shall be taken on the record, and no new evidence shall be introduced in the supreme court. The appellate court may correct any error appearing on the record, but need not consider a point that was not presented in the trial court in an appropriate manner. No judgment, order, or decree shall be reversed, amended, or modified for any error or defect, unless the court is of the opinion that it has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. [L 1892, c 57, §70; RL 1925, §2511; RL 1935, §3503; RL 1945, §9505; RL 1955, §208-5; HRS §641-4; am L 1970, c 188, §39; am L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; ren HRS §641-2; am L 2004, c 202, §67; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

Rules of Court

Preservation of error, prejudicial error as requisites, see HRCP rules 46, 61.

Case Notes

Under certain conditions, judgment can be reversed on legal theory not raised before. 56 H. 466, 540 P.2d 978 (1975).

Supreme court cannot disregard jurisdictional defects in an appeal. 57 H. 61, 549 P.2d 477 (1976).

Appellate court was not precluded from considering equity defense of unclean hands raised for the first time on appeal. 57 H. 215, 553 P.2d 733 (1976).

Evidence outside trial record may not be referred to in appellate brief unless approved by trial court pursuant to HRCP rule 75(c). 57 H. 405, 557 P.2d 125 (1976).

Court's power to render final judgment on reversal should be exercised where the result would be foreordained on remand. 58 H. 345, 569 P.2d 884 (1977).

Trial court's possible error in granting directed verdict found to be harmless in light of subsequent jury instructions. 60 H. 214, 587 P.2d 1229 (1978).

Where surviving spouse failed to show how family court's erroneous finding of fact affected the court's decision, the erroneous finding did not affect surviving spouse's substantial rights and did not constitute reversible error. 100 H. 397, 60 P.3d 798 (2003).

Intermediate court of appeals did not err in considering a point not raised on appeal by the parties, that is, whether judgment entered on arbitration award had binding effect on and superseded orders in the case, because an appellate court has discretion to do so pursuant to subsection (b). 140 H. 381, 400 P.3d 582 (2017).

Mentioned: 74 H. 210, 847 P.2d 652 (1992).

Scope of review. Review of factual issues, see 42 H. 250, 256 (1957); 42 H. 264, 267 (1958); 45 H. 83, 86-87, 363 P.2d 964 (1961). To extent governed by Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, see HRCP rule 52(a), construed in 42 H. 111, 116 (1957); 42 H. 286, 297 (1958); 43 H. 76, 82 (1958); 43 H. 119, 124 (1959); 44 H. 327, 342, 359 P.2d 164 (1960); 44 H. 582, 358 P.2d 53 (1960), den'g reh'g of 44 H. 464, 355 P.2d 25 (1960); 45 H. 128, 139, 363 P.2d 969 (1961); 45 H. 232, 233-234, 364 P.2d 646 (1961); 45 H. 445, 452, 370 P.2d 463 (1962); 45 H. 521, 550-551, 371 P.2d 379 (1962); 46 H. 233, 238, 377 P.2d 708 (1962); 46 H. 353, 364, 380 P.2d 488 (1963); 46 H. 475, 513-514, 382 P.2d 920 (1963); 47 H. 145, 147, 384 P.2d 300 (1963); 47 H. 220, 225, 386 P.2d 855 (1963); 47 H. 577, 585, 393 P.2d 89 (1964); 48 H. 152, 168, 397 P.2d 593 (1964); 48 H. 193, 202, 397 P.2d 552 (1964), reh'g den. 48 H. 391, 402 P.2d 678 (1965); 49 H. 62, 68, 412 P.2d 326 (1966); 49 H. 160, 180, 413 P.2d 221 (1966); 49 H. 661, 667, 426 P.2d 816 (1967).

Cases decided before adoption of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure.

Newly discovered evidence, admissibility of, effect. 3 H. 64 (1867); 7 H. 573 (1889); 14 H. 204 (1902); 33 H. 98 (1934); 38 H. 605 (1950). Review generally on the record. 14 H. 204 (1902); 23 H. 571, 572 (1917).

In equitable actions, findings of trial judge not binding on supreme court and may make its own findings. 15 H. 526 (1904); 22 H. 288 (1914); 28 H. 590, 662 (1925); 29 H. 638 (1927); 33 H. 701 (1927); 34 H. 363 (1937); 34 H. 228 (1937); 34 H. 303 (1937); 39 H. 185 (1952); 158 F.2d 122 (1946); see also 23 H. 646, 649 (1917). In equity case, presumption correctly decided. 22 H. 391 (1914). In the case of conflicting evidence, findings entitled to great weight. 10 H. 308 (1896); 15 H. 526 (1904); 22 H. 17 (1914); 22 H. 391 (1914); 25 H. 22, 33 (1919); 26 H. 137 (1921); 29 H. 638 (1927); 29 H. 698 (1927); 30 H. 446 (1928); 32 H. 659 (1933); 32 H. 751 (1933); 33 H. 745 (1936); 33 H. 846 (1936); 34 H. 87, 91 (1937); 38 H. 616 (1950); 40 H. 279 (1953); 40 H. 386 (1954). Even though the evidence be meager, if sustains findings, will not be disturbed. 24 H. 277 (1918). Where evidence is of slight weight and doubtful character, findings not followed. 33 H. 701 (1936); 35 H. 689 (1940). In divorce cases; supreme court will draw its own conclusions; in cases turning wholly or largely on credibility of witnesses or weight of evidence, findings of trial judge accorded much weight. 21 H. 339 (1912); 22 H. 189 (1914); 29 H. 866 (1927); 30 H. 240 (1927); 34 H. 312 (1937); 36 H. 49 (1942); 37 H. 512 (1947); should control unless the evidence clearly requires the contrary conclusion. 32 H. 177 (1931).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Hac v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 73 P.3d 46 (Haw. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hac v. Univ. of Hawai'i, 73 P.3d 46 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “" HRS § 641-2 (1993). As the jury found that no harassment occurred, the failure to give a separate instruction regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress did not affect Plaintiff's constitutional rights.”

State v. Moses, 77 P.3d 940 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “” HRS § 641-2 (1993). Insofar as the prosecution argues that the ICA gravely erred by holding that the record was inadequate to hold Moses waived the physician-patient privilege, the prosecution’s argument is' without merit.”

Querubin v. Thronas, 109 P.3d 689 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 4× “2d 228, 230 (1969) (citations omitted); see also HRS § 641-2 (2004) ("The appellate court .”

State v. Kalaola, 237 P.3d 1109 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 4× “3d 526, 529-30 (2007) (concluding that Petitioner made an argument at trial that "differ[ed] from the argument [he sought] to assert on appeal" and, therefore, the court would not address it (citing HRS § 641-2 (Supp.2004) ("The appellate court .”

Excelsior Lodge No. One, Indep. Order of Odd Fellows v. Eyecor, Ltd., 847 P.2d 652 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 12× “Tropical also noted that HRS § 641-2 generally authorizes this court to affirm, reverse, or modify a trial court judgment, and “to correct *225 any error appearing on the record.”

Price v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc., 111 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 4× “2d 228, 230 (1969) (citations omitted); see also HRS § 641-2 (2004) ("The appellate court .”

Bhakta v. Cnty. of Maui, 124 P.3d 943 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 4× “However, even if the trial court’s finding is found to be clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs fail to argue how this finding, if erroneous, affected the outcome of the trial court’s decision.”

Ditto v. McCurdy, 44 P.3d 274 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 6× “[10] HRS § 641-2 provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o judgment, order or decree shall be reversed, amended or modified for any error or defect unless the court is of the opinion that it has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”

Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 176 P.3d 91 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 2× “” HRS § 641-2 (Supp.2006). Second, if Kamaka did, in fact, raise such arguments below, she has failed to specifically state “the alleged error [that was] committed by the court,” HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) (2007), as well as “where in the record the alleged error oecurred[ ] and .”

Torres v. Torres, 60 P.3d 798 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “HRS § 641-2 (1993) provides in pertinent part that "[n]o judgment, order or decree shall be reversed, amended or modified for any error or defect unless the court is of the opinion that it has injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.”

Williams v. Aona, 210 P.3d 501 (Haw. 2009). · cites it 4× “The appellate court may correct any error appearing on the record, but need not consider a point that was not presented in the trial court in an appropriate manner. No judgment, order, or decree shall be reversed, amended, or modified for any error or defect, unless the court is…”

Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 164 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 2× “3d 1014, 1038 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii) (2007) (noting that an appellant’s opening brief shall state “where in the record the alleged error was objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the…”

Show all 59 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-2(b) — 7 cases

In re Arbitration between Hawaii State Teachers Ass'n & State of Hawaii, Dep't of Educ.. ICA Opinion, filed 11/26/2013. Consol. with No. CAAP-11-0000140., 400 P.3d 582 (Haw. 2017).

Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Domingo, 524 P.3d 355 (Haw. 2023).

State v. Marroquin. Dissenting Opinion by Wilson, J., 482 P.3d 1097 (Haw. 2021).

Hasegawa v. Fang (Haw. App. 2026).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-2(b)(2016) — 2 cases

Hasegawa v. Fang (Haw. App. 2026).

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.