§657-22 When process not commencement.
Upon any such matter being established, or upon its appearance in any other way
that any process was issued without any intent that it should be served, the
process shall not be deemed the commencement of an action within the meaning of
this part or section 663-3. [CC 1859, §1045; RL 1925, §2656; RL 1935, §3927; RL
1945, §10438; RL 1955, §241-21; HRS §657-22; am L 1972, c 105, §1(n)]
Case Notes
Where plaintiffs never had original complaint, the only
complaint filed within limitations period, served on defendant and had only the
first amended complaint served, despite the fact that original complaint was
never served, actions by plaintiffs evidenced both an intent to serve original
complaint as well as a continuing intent to pursue their cause of action. 848
F. Supp. 1482 (1993).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1987–2017 · leading case:
Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002).
Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 10× “The federal district court interpreted HRS § 657-22 as “not requir[ing] a plaintiff to actually serve the defendant or to exercise due diligence.”
Russell v. Attco, Inc., 923 P.2d 403 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 657-22 (1993) provides: When process not commencement.”
Tobosa v. Owens, 741 P.2d 1280 (Haw. 1987).
“(2) Subject to HRS section 657-22, the person intended shall thereupon be considered a party defendant to the action, as having notice of the institution of the action against him, and as sufficiently described for all purposes, including services of process, and the action…”
Nam Soon Jeon v. 445 Seaside, Inc., 288 F.R.D. 492 (D. Haw. 2013).
“(2) Subject to HRS section 657-22, the person intended shall thereupon be considered a party defendant to the action, as having notice of the institution of the action against that person, and as sufficiently described for all purposes, including services of process, and the…”
Peak Capital Grp., LLC v. Perez., 407 P.3d 116 (Haw. 2017).
“(2) Subject to HRS section 657-22, the person intended shall thereupon be considered a party defendant to the action, as having notice of the institution of the action against that person, and as sufficiently described for all purposes, including services of process, and 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.