§666-6 Summary possession proceedings;
venue. In the case of summary possession proceedings, the person entitled
to the possession of the premises shall bring and prosecute the person's action
in the district court of the circuit wherein the lands and premises in question
are situated. [CC 1859, §940; am L 1905, c 95, §1; RL 1925, §2779; RL 1935,
§4014; RL 1945, §10405; RL 1955, §240-6; HRS §666-6; am L 1972, c 90, §8(c);
gen ch 1985]
Rules of Court
See DCRCP rule 3(b), (c)(4).
Case Notes
Necessary to allege relation of landlord and tenant exists or
has existed, how such tenancy was created, whether by lease or parol, when and
how terminated and that required notice to quit was given. 4 H. 154, 157
(1879); 13 H. 385 (1901); 22 H. 739 (1915).
Complaint held sufficient. 15 H. 632 (1904).
Right to possession, not title in issue. 20 H. 712 (1911);
22 H. 129 (1914).
The question of whether the right of trial by jury guaranteed
by article I, §10, state constitution, applies to a summary possession
proceeding was raised but not decided. 58 H. 276, 567 P.2d 1239 (1977).
Actions to dispossess lessees involving short-term rental
agreements or other leases that grant lessees solely the right of possession
may only be adjudicated in district court pursuant to this section. 74 H. 294,
845 P.2d 1186 (1992).
Cited: 6 H. 407, 408 (1883).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case:
Lum v. Sun, 769 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1989).
Lum v. Sun, 769 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1989).
· cites it 4× “” HRS § 666-6. And any action prosecuted in a district court must be tried and determined “without a jury[.”
Queen Emma Found. v. Tingco, 845 P.2d 1186 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 4× “In contradistinction, actions, to dispossess lessees involving short-term rental *306 agreements or other leases that grant lessees solely the right of possession may only be adjudicated in district court, pursuant to HRS § 666-6. 13 This is because such actions cannot be…”
Ryan v. Herzog., 418 P.3d 619 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 666-1 (1972)(providing for summary possession proceedings); HRS § 521-68 (1984)(providing for summary proceedings for possession in the context of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code); HRS § 666-6 (1984) (stating that venue for summary possession proceedings is in the…”
Naliielua v. State of Hawaii, 795 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Haw. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Count II of plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that plaintiffs were deprived of “due process equal protection” because the Writ of Possession under which they were evicted was issued by a Hawaii Circuit Court rather than a Hawaii District Court…”
Kimball v. Lincoln, 809 P.2d 1130 (Haw. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, apparently appellant was in possession of the land in question except for that portion of the land reserved in the lease to the possession of the appellee.”
Cedillos v. Masumoto., 363 P.3d 278 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Thus, HRS § 666-6 (1993), did not apply to Masu-moto at the time she accepted Cedillos’s cheek on December 4, 2016 and does not affect how the court construes that payment.”
Waimanalo Vill. Residents' Corp. v. Young, 956 P.2d 1285 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to HRS § 666-6 (1993), summary possession proceedings are required to be *363 prosecuted “in the district court of the circuit wherein the land and premises in question are situated.”
Hawaiian Props., Ltd. v. Tauala, 254 P.3d 487 (Haw. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In contradistinction, actions to dispossess lessees involving short-term rental agreements or other leases that grant lessees solely the right of possession may only be adjudicated in district court, pursuant to HRS § 666-6. This is because such actions cannot be characterized…”
Maui Harbor Shops, LP v. Octagon Corp., 497 P.3d 1104 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Rather, HRS § 666-6 (2016) provides that "[i]n the case of summary possession proceedings, the person entitled to the possession of the premises shall bring and prosecute the person's action in the district court of the circuit wherein the lands and premises in question are…”
Naliielua v. Hawaii, 795 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Haw. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Count II-Due Processa Plaintiffs allege in Count II that the Department deprived them of due process when it evicted them under a writ of possession issued by a Hawaii state circuit court, rather than a Hawaii state district court, as required by Haw.Rev.Stat. § 666-6. 5 Like…”
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.