§88-42 Membership generally. Except as
otherwise provided in this part, all employees of the Territory or any county
on July 1, 1945, shall be members of the system on that date, and all persons
who thereafter enter or reenter the service of the State or any county shall
become members at the time of their entry or reentry.
Per diem workers shall become eligible for
membership on January 1, 1952, and all persons who are employed as per diem
workers after December 31, 1951, shall become members of the system. Any
person who was a per diem worker before January 1, 1952, so long as the person
is employed as a per diem worker, shall not be required to become a member or
to remain a member if the person has elected before October 2, 1953, to
withdraw as a member.
Members of the legislature shall become
eligible for membership on July 1, 1951. Any member of the legislature in
service on July 1, 1951, or thereafter entering the legislature, shall become a
member or elect to be excluded from membership in the system as provided in
section 88-42.6. [L 1925, c 55, §3(1); am L 1927, c 223, §1; am imp L 1927, c
251, §§1, 2, 5; am imp L 1929, c 190, §1; RL 1935, §7922; RL 1945, pt of §703;
am L 1945, c 73, pt of §1(b); am L 1951, c 110, §1(b); am L 1953, c 37, §1(c);
RL 1955, pt of §6-23; HRS §88-42; am L 1969, c 110, pt of §1; gen ch 1993; am L
2008, c 47, §4]
Attorney General Opinions
A retired government
employee who accepts reemployment may not receive the retiree's retirement
allowance during the retiree's reemployment period. Att. Gen. Op. 66-26.
Notes of Decisions
Vail v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Hawai'i, 856 P.2d 1227 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 42× “Specifically, Vail, who is currently a State district court judge, claims that he earned full-time membership service credit for the period he spent as a per diem judge (1981-1989), pursuant to HRS § 88-42, which provides in relevant part: Membership generally.”
Kaho'ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs must be able to show that they have “suffered an actual or threatened injury as a result of [the State’s] conduct[,]” and for the foregoing reasons, that has not been demonstrated here. XVI. In regard to Plaintiffs’ argument (2), Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he law…”
AlohaCare v. Ito, 271 P.3d 621 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 4× “2d 1227, 1231 (1993) (explaining that the plaintiff had "requested a declaratory order from the agency as to the applicability of HRS § 88-42 to his situation[ ]" of whether he qualified for full-time membership credit in the State of Hawaii's Employees' Retirement System, and…”
Kahoohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In regard to Plaintiffs' argument (2), Plaintiffs argue that "[t]he law explicitly provides that membership in the ERS commences as of the date of hire, [HRS § 88-42,] . . . [a]rticle XVI, section 2 provides that membership in the system is a `contractual relationship[,]'" and…”
Stout v. Bd. of Trs. of the Employees' Ret. Sys., State of Hawaii., 398 P.3d 766 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 6× “HRS § 88-42 (1993), “Membership generally,” provides qualifications for membership into the ERS: Except as otherwise provided in this part, all employees of the Territory or any county on July 1,1945, shall be members of the system on such date, and all persons who thereafter…”
Dannenberg v. State, 383 P.3d 1177 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(citing 2 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1950, at 496; HRS § 88-42 (Supp. 2008)). 14 It is with this entry into service, and this mandatory membership in an ERS, that an employee becomes eligible to receive the benefits ai’ising from ERS membership,…”
Everson v. State, 228 P.3d 282 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See HRS § 88-42 (Supp.2008) ("Except as otherwise provided in this part, all employees of the Territory or any county on July 1, 1945, shall be members of the system on that date, and all persons who thereafter enter or reenter the service of the State or any county shall become…”
Nelson v. Miwa, 546 P.2d 1005 (Haw. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The faculty members at the University of Hawaii are required to become members of the Employees Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, HRS §§ 88-42, -43, -102(2) (Supp. 1975). The record in this case indicates that there are no physical characteristics attributable to college…”
Slaton v. State., 564 P.3d 330 (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “(citing 2 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawai‘i of 1950, at 495; HRS § 88-42 (Supp. 2008)). It is with this entry into service, and this mandatory membership in an ERS, that an employee becomes eligible to receive the benefits arising from ERS membership,…”
Martel v. Emp. Ret. Sys. (Haw. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Hawaiʻi’s Administrative Procedure Act, HRS chapter 91, imposes procedural constraints on how agencies adopt, amend, or repeal rules. This case turns on four questions.”
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.