Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 673
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 673-10 (2026)

  Limitation on actions; native Hawaiians

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

     §673-10  Limitation on actions; native Hawaiians.  Every claim arising under this chapter shall forever be barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the cause of action first accrues; provided that this statute of limitations shall be tolled until July 1, 1990; provided that the filing of the claim in an administrative proceeding pursuant to this chapter shall toll any applicable statute of limitations, and any such statute of limitations shall remain tolled until ninety days after the date the decision is rendered in the administrative proceeding; provided further that any cause of action that first accrues after July 1, 1995 shall forever be barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the cause of action first accrues. [L 1988, c 395, pt of §2; am L Sp 1995, c 14, §13]

 

Case Notes

 

  Where plaintiff office of Hawaiian affairs brought suit in its own corporate name under §10-16, rather than as an agency of the State on behalf of the people of the State, §657-1.5 did not exempt plaintiff from the statute of limitations for bringing a suit under this section.  110 H. 338, 133 P.3d 767 (2006).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 133 P.3d 767 (Haw. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Off. of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 133 P.3d 767 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 10× “We now examine whether the plaintiffs have complied with chapter 673’s statutory requirements with respect to notice under HRS § 673-3 (1993) and statute of limitations under HRS § 673-10 (Supp.2004), quoted infra. ii.”
Kanahele v. State., 549 P.3d 275 (Haw. 2024). · cites it 2× “HRS § 673-10. Plaintiffs’ suit is timely because the DOT’s taking of the MKAR occurred in March 2018, and Plaintiffs filed their complaint in February 2020.”
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.