Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 659
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 659-6 (2025)

]  Judgment as to offices; burden of proof

✓ 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

     [§659-6]  Judgment as to offices; burden of proof.  [(a)]  If a person to whom an order is directed with respect to an office of which the person performs the duties does not answer within the time allowed or the answer is insufficient or it is found that the person has usurped the office or continues in it unlawfully, the court in addition to declaring the person not qualified to fill the office and forbidding the person to perform the duties of the office any longer, may direct that a new appointment be made and may grant other appropriate relief.

     [(b)]  If the proceeding is commenced by verified petition of the attorney general and concerns a public office, the respondent shall have the burden of proof. [L 1876, c 39, §41; RL 1925, §2721; RL 1935, §4263; RL 1945, §10284; RL 1955, §236-24; HRS §659-51; am L 1972, c 90, §3(f); ren HRS §659-6; gen ch 1985]

 

Case Notes

 

  Circuit court erred in allocating burden of proof to quo warranto petitioner, rather than respondent, because once a writ for quo warranto has been issued, the burden of proof rests upon the respondent.  It was not petitioner's burden to prove that respondent was not qualified for the office she held as director of the department of environmental management, or to prove that the Hawaii county council and Hawaii county mayor abused their discretion in interpreting the county charter of Hawaii; instead, it was respondent's burden to prove that she was qualified for the office she held.  139 H. 129 (App.), 384 P.3d 905 (2016).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. Cayetano, 6 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. Cayetano, 6 P.3d 799 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 4× “§ 659-6 Judgment as to offices; burden of proof.”
Morita v. Gorak., 453 P.3d 205 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 4× “3 Count I sought an order pursuant to HRS § 659-6 (2016)4, the quo warranto statute, declaring that Gorak did not properly hold the office of PUC commissioner and prohibiting him from further performing any of the post’s official duties.”
Application of Ferguson, 846 P.2d 894 (Haw. 1993). “Standing Interested individuals have standing to petition for writs of quo warranto pursuant to HRS § 659-4 (1985), which provides: *399 The order is obtained by petition addressed to a circuit court, setting out facts sufficient to show a right to the order, and sworn to if the…”
Ford v. Leithead-Todd, 384 P.3d 905 (Haw. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “[HRS § 659-6 (1993); Application of Ferguson].”
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.