§661-8 Interest. No interest shall be
allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon by the
court, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of
interest, or upon a refund of a payment into the "litigated claims
fund" as provided by law. [L 1894-5, c 26, §8; RL 1925, §2676; RL 1935,
§4427; RL 1945, §10482; am L 1951, c 224, §4; RL 1955, §245-8; HRS §661-8]
Cross References
Litigated claims fund, see §§40-35 and 232-24.
Case Notes
Section does not preclude prejudgment interest where the
State is not involved. 51 H. 346, 461 P.2d 140 (1969).
Notwithstanding the constitutional right of a state to
sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the intermediate court of appeals did not err in determining that
the State waived sovereign immunity in arbitration proceedings resulting in
award of prejudgment interest pursuant to this section because: (1) Hawaii
case law does not prohibit arbitrators from making awards of prejudgment
interest; (2) this section does not state that an arbitrator is prohibited from
awarding prejudgment interest against the State; and (3) the State
"explicitly availed itself" of arbitration proceedings. 140 H. 381,
400 P.3d 582 (2017).
As this section disallows prejudgment interest on claims
against the State, except in certain, identified instances, the State did not
waive its sovereign immunity from an award of prejudgment interest under this
section, and §478-2 did not contradict or supersede the limitation of the
State's obligation to pay prejudgment interest only upon a "contract
expressly stipulating for the payment of interest", the circuit court did
not err when it denied plaintiffs' request for prejudgment interest. 122 H.
150 (App.), 223 P.3d 215 (2009).
Mentioned: 654 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (2009).
Notes of Decisions
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 106 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 10× “Similarly, HRS § 661-8 expressly waives the State’s immunity from prejudgment interest on claims based “upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, or upon a refund of a payment into the ‘litigated claims fund’ as provided by law.”
Kawashima v. State, Dep't of Educ.., 398 P.3d 728 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 18× “The ICA also ruled that: (1) pursuant to HRS § 661-1, 6 the *145 substitute teachers’ claim for breach of contract damages was not barred by sovereign immunity; (2) HRS § 302A-624(e), as a pay mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking jurisdiction under the…”
Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng'g & Erection, Inc., 951 P.2d 487 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 6× “claims *43 against the DOT were not barred by sovereign immunity, then summary judgment had been erroneously granted because there remained genuine issues of material fact regarding the provisions of the contracts at issue; or (3) if the claims against'the DOT were not barred by…”
Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 223 P.3d 215 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 9× “2004), as a pay-mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking the court’s jurisdiction under the “founded upon any statute” language in HRS § 661-1; (4) the Substitute Teachers’ claim for pre-judgment interest is barred by HRS § 661-8 (1993); (5) the Circuit…”
Kalima v. State., 468 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 10× “The circuit court correctly ruled that adjusting damages to present value constitutes an award of prejudgment interest in violation of HRS § 661-8. The circuit court adhered to the HRS Chapter 674 actual damages requirement by ruling that damages will not be adjusted to present…”
Rodrigues v. State, 472 P.2d 509 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 4× “Further support is given the proposition that "interest" in HRS 662-2 refers only to compensation for delay in payment of money damages by HRS 661-8. HRS 661-8, referring to suits by and against the State, provides that "No interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time…”
Kemp v. State Child Support Enf't Agency, 141 P.3d 1014 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 661-8 (1993), entitled "Interest,” provides that "[n]o interest shall be allowed on any claim up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon by the court, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest, or upon a refund of a payment into the…”
Lucas v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 461 P.2d 140 (Haw. 1969).
· cites it 4× “§ 2007 (1905)] This statute is now compiled with amendments as HRS § 661-8, and it is applicable only to suits by and against the state.”
Kenneth H. Hughes, Inc. v. Aloha Tower Dev., Corp., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Haw. 2009).
· cites it 3× “” The arbitration demand was not a claim and the award was not a judgment by the court, and therefore HRS § 661-8 is not controlling. It is of note that the Supreme Court of Hawaii has reached a similar conclusion regarding a similar statute.”
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.