[§659-1] Definition. This is an order
issuing in the name of the State by a circuit court and directed to a person
who claims or usurps an office of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or
of any corporation or quasi-corporation, public or private, or any franchise,
inquiring by what authority the person claims the office or franchise. [L 1876,
c 39, §36; am L 1907, c 39, §1; RL 1925, §2716; RL 1935, §4258; RL 1945,
§10279; RL 1955, §236-19; HRS §659-46; am L 1972, c 90, §3(a); ren HRS §659-1;
gen ch 1985]
Case Notes
Will not lie to remove manager of plantation. 5 H. 3 (1883).
Writ to contest fire department election denied where by law
members of a certain board are judges of validity of election. 8 H. 67 (1890).
Pleadings and practice, prior to adoption of Hawaii Rules of
Civil Procedure. 11 H. 22, 29 (1897); 22 H. 385 (1914).
Will lie to oust corporation officers illegally elected and
in office unlawfully. 11 H. 22, 28 (1897); 22 H. 604 (1915); 28 H. 476 (1925);
34 H. 897 (1939).
Writ must issue in the name of the sovereign. 11 H. 22, 29 (1897).
To try title to office. 22 H. 381, 383 (1914); 34 H. 12
(1936); 39 H. 431 (1952); 41 H. 1 (1955).
Cited: 133 H. 229 (App.), 325 P.3d 641 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Dejetley v. Kaho'ohalahala, 226 P.3d 421 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 8× “A As to Plaintiffs’ second question on appeal, Plaintiffs first maintain that the remedy of a writ of quo warranto pursuant to HRS §§ 659-1 17 and 659-10 18 is available, and *260 that the court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto pursuant to HRS § 603-21.”
Sierra Club v. Castle & Cooke Homes Hawai'i, Inc., 320 P.3d 849 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 4× “The common law remedy is codified under HRS Chapter 659 and defined by HRS § 659-1 (1993) as “an order issuing in the name of the State by a circuit court and directed to a person who claims or usurps an office of the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any corporation or…”
Hussey v. Say., 384 P.3d 1282 (Haw. 2016).
“Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 659-1 (1993) defines a writ of quo warranto as “an order issuing in the name of the State by a circuit court and directed to a person who claims or usurps an office of the State or of any subdivision thereof .”
Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. Cayetano, 6 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 4× “" [12] HRS § 659-1 (1993) defines "quo warranto" in relevant part as follows: This is an order issuing in the name of the State by a circuit court and directed to a person who claims or usurps an office of the State or of any subdivision thereof .”
Application of Ferguson, 846 P.2d 894 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 659-1 (1985). The burden rests with the respondent once the writ is issued.”
State Ex Rel. McClung v. Fukushima, 492 P.2d 128 (Haw. 1972).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 659-1 defines mandamus which may be issued by this court as an order addressed “to an individual, or corporation, or court of inferior jurisdiction, directing him or it to perform some certain act belonging to the place, duty or quality, with which he or it is clothed.”
Hussey v. Say, 325 P.3d 641 (Haw. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 659-1 (1993). The Dejetley court concluded that a writ of quo warranto “seemed to be an appropriate remedy” for Kaho'ohalahala’s alleged violation of § 3-3 of the Charter of the County of Maui residency requirements, which automatically and instantly created a forfeiture…”
Ramsay Travel, Inc. v. Kondo, 495 P.2d 1172 (Haw. 1972).
· cites it 4× “[9] HRS § 659-1 provides: Definition. [Mandamus] is an order issuing in the name of the State, by the supreme court or any justice thereof or a circuit judge, and addressed to an individual, or corporation, or court of inferior jurisdiction, directing him or it to perform some…”
Nakoa III v. Governor of the State of Hawai'i. (Haw. 2025).
· cites it 4× “First, the State argued that claims against the SLHO and the Working Group lacked merit because the writ of quo warranto mechanism under HRS § 659-1 (2016) cannot be used to challenge the validity of the SLHO and the Working Group.”
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.