§662-8 Interest. On all final
judgments rendered against the State in actions instituted under this chapter,
interest shall be computed at the rate of four per cent a year from the date of
judgment up to, but not exceeding, thirty days after the date of approval of
any appropriation act providing for payment of the judgment. [L 1957, c 312, pt
of §1; Supp, §245A-8; HRS §662-8]
Attorney General Opinions
Implies that judgments against State not funded by agency
budgets. Att. Gen. Op. 85-8.
Case Notes
Trial court did not err in concluding that the State was
immune from paying more than four per cent per annum post-judgment interest on
the plaintiffs' damages; as State appealed from trial court's judgment and thus
interest began to accrue "after the judgment on appeal", trial court
did not err in concluding that post-judgment interest on the plaintiffs'
damages began to accrue on that date. 105 H. 104, 94 P.3d 659 (2004).
Applicable to judgments against State; interest accrues from
entry of final appellate judgment. 6 H. App. 70, 708 P.2d 829 (1985), aff'd,
68 H. 220, 708 P.2d 824 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
Rodrigues v. State, 472 P.2d 509 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 17× “HRS 662-8 states that interest shall be computed " on all final judgments.”
Taylor-Rice v. State, 94 P.3d 659 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 13× “tutory interest on the full value of the judgment per [HRS] § 478-3, or may pay only limited interest under section 662-8?” The plaintiffs contend that, even though HRS § 662-8 provides that the State shall pay only 4% post-judgment interest on judgments rendered against it,…”
Littleton v. State, 708 P.2d 829 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 18× “1984), (1) interest on a judgment against State should be 4%, as specified in HRS § 662-8, rather than 10%, and (2) the interest should be computed from the date of the judgment on appeal rather than the trial court’s original judgment.”
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 106 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 4× “By contrast, HRS § 662-8 (1993) 16 expressly waives the State’s sovereign immunity as to postjudgment interest on tort claims.”
Kamalu v. Paren, Inc., 132 P.3d 378 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 6× “) In Taylor-Rice , we adopted the reasoning of the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which held in Littleton that, whenever the State loses a case “instituted under [the State Tort Liability Act],” see HRS § 662-8, supra note 3, “ ‘the legislature intended interest to run .”
Kemp v. State Child Support Enf't Agency, 141 P.3d 1014 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 662-8 (1993) provides that "[o]n all final judgments rendered against the State in actions instituted under this chapter, interest shall be computed at the rate of four per cent a year from the date of judgment up to, but not exceeding, thirty days after the date of…”
Littleton v. State, 708 P.2d 824 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 3× “1 HRS § 662-8: Interest. On all final judgments rendered against the State in actions instituted under this chapter, interest shall be computed at the rate of four per cent a year from the date of judgment up to, but not exceeding, thirty days after the date of approval of any…”
Kienker v. Bauer, 129 P.3d 1125 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 8× “1984) did not impliedly repeal HRS § 662-8 (1976). Id. at 72, 708 P.2d at 831 .”
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.