Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 661
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-31 (2026)

] 

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     [§661-31]  Certain actions barred.  (a)  In no event may a person bring an action under this part that is based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the State is already a party.

     (b)  The court shall dismiss an action or claim under this part, unless opposed by the State, if the allegations or transactions alleged in the action or claim are substantially the same as those publicly disclosed:

     (1)  In a state criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the State or its agent is a party;

     (2)  In a state legislative or other state report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or

     (3)  By the news media,

unless the action is brought by the attorney general or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.

     (c)  For purposes of this section, "original source" means an individual who:

     (1)  Prior to public disclosure under subsection (b), has voluntarily disclosed to the State the information on which the allegations or transactions in a claim are based; or

     (2)  Has knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions, and who has voluntarily provided the information to the State before filing an action under this part. [L 2012, c 294, pt of §5]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2018 · leading case: State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “HRS § 661-31 (b), (c) (2016). II. The Churches argue that the Circuit Court erred in retroactively applying the 2012 HFCA amendments to conduct that occurred prior to the amendments.”
United States v. Pfizer, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D. Mass. 2014). “19, 2013); Haw.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 661-31(c)(2) (eff. July 9, 2012); Ill.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-31(b) — 1 case
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “HRS § 661-31 (b), (c) (2016). II. The Churches argue that the Circuit Court erred in retroactively applying the 2012 HFCA amendments to conduct that occurred prior to the amendments.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-31(c)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Pfizer, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D. Mass. 2014). “19, 2013); Haw.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 661-31(c)(2) (eff. July 9, 2012); Ill.”
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “HRS § 661-31 (b), (c) (2016). II. The Churches argue that the Circuit Court erred in retroactively applying the 2012 HFCA amendments to conduct that occurred prior to the amendments.”
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.