§657-11 Recoveries authorized by federal
statute. Whenever any federal statute provides for damages or equitable
relief and neither the federal statute nor any specific state statute specifies
the period within which suit may be brought, the suit, if brought in a state
court, shall be commenced within two years from the date the cause of action
arises or be thereafter barred. [L 1945, c 174, §1; RL 1955, §241-10; HRS
§657-11; am L 1972, c 105, §1(f); am L 1986, c 337, §1]
Case Notes
Does not apply to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 749
F.2d 588 (1984).
Applicable to breach of Railway Labor Act; tolling of
limitations period. 790 F.2d 727 (1986).
Two-year statute of limitations, rather than six-month
catchall statute of limitations in National Labor Relations Act, applied to
action brought under employee protection program of Airline Deregulation Act.
940 F.2d 1312 (1991).
Does not apply to action for redress for deprivation of civil
rights. 402 F. Supp. 95 (1975).
Section may not apply to claims filed pursuant to SEC Rules
103-5 or §17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 because no new liability is
imposed. 501 F. Supp. 830 (1980).
Limitation period under this section applied because Railway
Labor Act "imposes a new liability". 525 F. Supp. 874 (1981).
Unconstitutionally discriminates against actions brought
under federal statutes. 574 F. Supp. 1510 (1983).
Section was constitutional as applied to action brought under
42 U.S.C. 1983. 575 F. Supp. 1510 (1983).
Applies to actions brought under Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. 619 F. Supp. 585 (1985).
Application of statute of limitations for Labor Management
Act. 687 F. Supp. 1453 (1988).
Applies to actions brought in state courts; §657-1 was
applied to federal action. 751 F. Supp. 1426 (1990).
Notes of Decisions
Union of Flight Attendants, Local No. 1 v. Air Micronesia, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 1520 (D. Haw. 1988).
· cites it 30× “Defendant Air Micronesia moves the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor on the grounds that virtually all of the claims that plaintiff UFA sets forth in paragraphs 11(b) and 11(c) of its complaint are barred under Hawaii’s one year statute of limitations, Haw.Rev.Stat. §…”
Lai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 575 F. Supp. 1510 (D. Haw. 1983).
· cites it 22× “§ 1983 , namely Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-11, they may be timely under some other cause of action, which confers jurisdiction on the court.”
Matthewman v. Akahane, 574 F. Supp. 1510 (D. Haw. 1983).
· cites it 17× “§ 657-11 is the applicable statute of limitations for all actions brought under 42 U.”
McCarthy v. Pac. Loan, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 1102 (D. Haw. 1986).
· cites it 15× “Section 657-11 has had diverse treatment by the judges in the District of Hawaii.”
Sotomura v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 402 F. Supp. 95 (D. Haw. 1975).
· cites it 8× “Defendants argue that the one year limitation of Section 657-11, H.R.S., should be applied in this case.”
Hawaii Carpenters' Trust Funds v. Waiola Carpenter Shop, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 237 (D. Haw. 1985).
· cites it 9× “§ 657-11 provides: Whenever any federal statute provides for the imposition of a civil penalty or liquidated damages or imposes a new liability or enlarges any existing liability and the statute does not specify the period within which suit to recover the penalty, liquidated…”
Bush v. Rewald, 619 F. Supp. 585 (D. Haw. 1986).
· cites it 2× “In Compton, the court found that the most analogous limitation period in California was three years, for civil actions based on statute.”
Lai v. City of Honolulu, 562 F. Supp. 903 (D. Haw. 1983).
· cites it 5× “It sets out a one-year statute of limitations for recoveries authorized by federal statute where the statute imposes a new liability or enlarges an existing liability, and where the statute does not set out its own limitations period.”
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.