§661-5 Limitations on action. Every
claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever barred
unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues;
provided that the claims of persons under legal disability shall not be barred
if the action is commenced within one year after the disability has ceased. [L
1894-5, c 26, §5; RL 1925, §2673; RL 1935, §4424; RL 1945, §10479; RL 1955,
§245-5; HRS §661-5; am L 1972, c 164, §1(e); am L 2016, c 55, §44]
Cross References
Actions on contract for loss in connection with registered
land, see §501-217.
Case Notes
Court on own motion will dismiss action if not brought within
time limited, namely, two years. 11 H. 404 (1898).
Claim accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known
that an actionable wrong has been committed. 63 H. 117, 621 P.2d 957 (1980).
Lawsuit seeking judicial review of employees' retirement
system declaratory order not time-barred. 75 H. 42, 856 P.2d 1227 (1993).
Where employees' retirement system trustees were alleging in
lawsuit that Act 100, L 1999 was unconstitutional as being violative of article
XVI, §2 of the Hawaii constitution, their claims were not "founded upon
any statute of the State; or upon any regulation of an executive department; or
upon any contract" and were not referred to the court by the legislature;
thus, trustees' claims were not cognizable under chapter 661, and, therefore, were
not subject to the statute of limitations set forth in this section. 114 H.
302, 162 P.3d 696 (2007).
The circuit court did not err in summarily ruling that this
section barred claims against the State for back pay prior to November 8, 2000
where there was nothing in the record to indicate why plaintiffs could not have
brought their claims within the two-year statute of limitations period and
there was no "extraordinary circumstance". 122 H. 150 (App.), 223
P.3d 215 (2009).
Under the "continuing tort doctrine", while the
statute of limitations is "tolled" by a continuing tortious act,
recovery may be had only for damages accruing within the statutory period
before the action, but not for damages accrued prior to that period; thus, the
statute of limitations applicable to periodic pay claims begins to run on each
paycheck as it becomes due and plaintiffs' claims for back pay due prior to
November 8, 2000 were barred by this section, but their claims for pay due from
that date onward were not barred by the statute of limitations. 122 H. 150
(App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 14× “On January 10, 2003, the State filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs and Trustees on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims against the State were barred by (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2) the two-year statute of limitations set *316 forth in HRS §…”
DW Aina Le'a Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm'n., 477 P.3d 836 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 25× “2 HRS § 661-5 (2016) states, “Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues[.”
Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 223 P.3d 215 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 29× “(2) The State of Hawai'i and its departments have sovereign immunity as to claims arising before November 8, 2000, pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. § 661-5 (1993). (3) The State of Hawai'i and its departments have sovereign immunity as to prospective injunctive relief.”
Vail v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 856 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 23× “Although we conclude that Vail’s lawsuit was not time — barred under HRS § 661-5, we also conclude that Vail’s claim would violate the State’s retirement law, and that the ERS possesses the statutory authority to deny Vail full-time membership credit.”
Kahoohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 16× “On January 10, 2003, the State filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs and Trustees on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims against the State were barred by (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2) the two-year statute of limitations set *710 forth in HRS §…”
Honda Ex Rel. Kamakana v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys., 120 P.3d 237 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 10× “The ERS Board additionally argues that "even if the contract and tort claims could be brought against the Statewhich under Chapter 91 they could notthe court has overlooked the two-year statutes of limitation[,]" HRS §§ 661-5 [5] and 662-4. [6] Helen, however, filed an…”
Waugh v. Univ. of Hawaii, 621 P.2d 957 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 661-5. 5 Since the only suits to which the state has consented are defined by the above two chapters, appellant’s action must have been brought under one of these two chapters or else be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.”
Dw Aina Le'a Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm, 918 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “The court also concluded in the alternative that DW’s federal takings claim is time-barred under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-5 , which provides a two-year limitations period for “[e]very claim against the State, cognizable under [Part I of Chapter 661].”
Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to HRS § 661-5 (1993), "[e]very claim against the State, cognizable under this chapter, shall be forever barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the claim first accrues[.”
Okutsu v. State., 528 P.3d 956 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “…RLH Chapter 220 § 10479 (1945); RLH § 245-5 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1955); HRS § 661-5 (1976). The statute currently reads: §661-5 Limitations on action. Every claim against the State, cognizable under this part, shall be forever…”
Whittington v. State, 806 P.2d 957 (Haw. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Similarly our statute governing non-tort claims against the State expressly allows limited minority tolling (HRS § 661-5), but our Tort Liability Act contains no such provision (HRS § 662 — 4).”
Amone v. Aveiro, 226 F.R.D. 677 (D. Haw. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 661-5 provides a two year statute of limitations for claims against the state.”
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.