§641-1 Appeals as of right or interlocutory, civil matters. (a) Appeals shall be allowed in civil matters from all final judgments, orders, or decrees of circuit and district courts and the land court to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602.
(b) Upon application made within the time provided by the rules of court, an appeal in a civil matter may be allowed by a circuit court in its discretion from an order denying a motion to dismiss or from any interlocutory judgment, order, or decree whenever the circuit court may think the same advisable for the speedy termination of litigation before it. The refusal of the circuit court to allow an appeal from an interlocutory judgment, order, or decree shall not be reviewable by any other court.
(c) An appeal shall be taken in the manner and within the time provided by the rules of court. [L 1892, c 57, §69; am L 1892, c 109, §1; am L 1898, c 40, §1; RL 1925, §2509; RL 1935, §3501; am L 1939, c 18, §1; am L 1941, c 122, §1; RL 1945, §9503; am L 1945, c 194, §1; RL 1955, §208-3; HRS §641-2; am L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; ren HRS §641-1; am L 1979, c 111, §6(1); am L 2004, c 202, §66; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]
Rules of Court
Appeals, when taken, see HRAP rule 4.
Law Journals and Reviews
Interlocutory and Final Appeals in Hawaii. 9 HBJ, no. 2, at 45 (1972).
Appellate Caseload in Hawaii. 13 HBJ, no. 3, at 3 (1977).
Through the Looking Glass--Finality, Interlocutory Appeals and the Hawaii Supreme Court's Supervisory Powers. 9 UH L. Rev. 87 (1987).
Striking a Balance: Procedural Reform Under the Lum Court. 14 UH L. Rev. 223 (1992).
Case Notes
Judgment as to one and not all of multiple parties is interlocutory and not appealable without allowance by circuit court. 51 H. 137, 453 P.2d 753 (1969); 51 H. 307, 459 P.2d 195 (1969).
Interlocutory appeal requires allowance of court. 51 H. 480, 463 P.2d 530 (1969).
Finality of order or decree, how determined. 54 H. 276, 506 P.2d 1 (1973).
Appeals to circuit courts under §286-157, involving revocation of driver's license, not superseded by this section. 54 H. 519, 511 P.2d 161 (1973).
Procedural orders leaving cause pending held interlocutory. 56 H. 662, 548 P.2d 251 (1976).
No jurisdiction of appeal prior to final judgment, unless allowed as interlocutory appeal. 57 H. 61, 549 P.2d 477 (1976).
When trial court refuses appeal from interlocutory order, supreme court is without jurisdiction. 57 H. 73, 549 P.2d 1147 (1976).
Where disposition of case involving multiple claims or parties is embodied in several orders, collectively the orders can constitute a final judgment. 57 H. 273, 554 P.2d 233 (1976).
Divorce decree is final and appealable despite reservation of support or custody question. 57 H. 519, 559 P.2d 744 (1977).
Burden is on appellant to prove that factual findings of judge were clearly erroneous. 57 H. 599, 561 P.2d 1286 (1977).
Appeal from summary judgment held premature since other claims remained pending. 58 H. 552, 574 P.2d 884 (1978).
Motions, timely filed after judgment, toll running of time for appeal until court's ruling on the motions. 58 H. 552, 574 P.2d 884 (1978).
The prerequisite for an appellate court to find abuse of discretion is that all appraisals of the evidence would result in a different finding. 60 H. 354, 590 P.2d 80 (1979).
Since factfinder's interpretation of a nondiscrimination provision was reasonable it was not set aside on appeal. 60 H. 361, 590 P.2d 993 (1979).
Trial court's resolving of conflicting evidence will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. 60 H. 381, 590 P.2d 564 (1979).
Order imposing sanctions for failure to provide discovery may be immediately appealed. 60 H. 467, 591 P.2d 1060 (1979).
Order granting disqualification of attorney is interlocutory and not appealable without leave of court but writ of mandamus may be available. 61 H. 552, 606 P.2d 1320 (1980).
Court abused discretion in allowing interlocutory appeal. 63 H. 668, 634 P.2d 595 (1981).
State was "aggrieved" by order to pay attorney's fees even though no further liability imposed. 64 H. 345, 641 P.2d 1321 (1982).
Trial court shall carefully consider whether an interlocutory appeal will more speedily determine litigation, and set forth its reasons if it so concludes. 67 H. 510, 694 P.2d 388 (1985).
Orders denying stay and application for arbitration are appealable. 68 H. 98, 705 P.2d 28 (1985).
Denial of motion to quash garnishee summons was not a final appealable order. 68 H. 368, 714 P.2d 936 (1986).
Appealability of foreclosure decree in multiple-party or multiple-issue case. 69 H. 11, 731 P.2d 151 (1987).
Order was appealable where it stayed judgment for lease termination pending arbitration to determine value of leasehold improvements. 69 H. 112, 736 P.2d 55 (1987).
Grant of interlocutory appeal was improper. 71 H. 644, 802 P.2d 480 (1990).
Orders denying an application for a stay of proceedings until arbitration had been completed made in accordance with §658-5 are appealable orders under subsection (a). 73 H. 433, 834 P.2d 1294 (1992).
Orders compelling arbitration under §658-3 are appealable orders within meaning of this section. 74 H. 210, 847 P.2d 652 (1992).
Jurisdiction properly lies in supreme court to hear and determine appeals from district court judgments after an administrative hearing, pursuant to §602-5(1) and subsection (a). 75 H. 1, 856 P.2d 1207 (1993).
Plaintiff had standing to appeal on ground it was aggrieved by summary judgment order because its interest in obtaining injunctive relief against defendant-appellee increased if plaintiff did not prevail against defendant-appellant. 75 H. 370, 862 P.2d 1048 (1993).
Supreme court was vested with appellate jurisdiction, where family court's determination of jurisdiction, followed by award of foster custody, met requisite degree of finality of an appealable order. 77 H. 109, 883 P.2d 30 (1994).
Sanctions order was not a final appealable order, where sanctions order failed to satisfy strict prerequisites of collateral order doctrine; appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 77 H. 157, 883 P.2d 78 (1994).
Order denying employer's motion to intervene constituted a final appealable order. 79 H. 352, 903 P.2d 48 (1995).
Circuit court dismissal of case without prejudice did not affect appellate jurisdiction. 81 H. 171, 914 P.2d 1364 (1996).
Where intervenors-defendants were parties to action, received circuit court permission to file interlocutory appeal and did file notice of appeal, no reason to dismiss appeal based on standing or other jurisdictional issues under this section. 87 H. 91, 952 P.2d 379 (1998).
There is no appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of discovery orders regarding the production of documents against a claim of attorney-client privilege. 88 H. 319, 966 P.2d 631 (1998).
Though supreme court's jurisdiction over an appeal is limited, pursuant to subsection (a), to a review of final judgments, orders, and decrees, where appellant would have been subjected to irreparable injury if appellate review awaited the final outcome of the unresolved garnishment matters, the garnishee order was immediately appealable pursuant to the Forgay rule. 90 H. 345, 978 P.2d 783 (1999).
An order that fully disposes of an action in district court may be final and appealable without the entry of judgment on a separate document, as long as the appealed order ends the litigation by fully deciding the rights and liabilities of all parties and leaves nothing further to be adjudicated. 91 H. 425, 984 P.2d 1251 (1999).
The fact that the question of who was responsible for payment for particular services received by the children could be decided independently from the need for the family court's continuing jurisdiction, coupled with the importance of obtaining a definitive ruling on the issue, established that the "requisite degree of finality" was present to permit appellate jurisdiction. 96 H. 272, 30 P.3d 878 (2001).
Trial court's order was appealable under subsection (a) as it granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion, ordering return of garnished funds, awarding costs, and denying request for attorneys' fees, disposing of all issues raised in the motion; order left nothing further to be accomplished and was, therefore, final. 103 H. 153, 80 P.3d 974 (2003).
Where final order was not reduced to a separate judgment as required by HRCP rule 58, it was not appealable under this section. 113 H. 406, 153 P.3d 1091 (2007).
The order confirming the partition sale met the requirements of appealability under the Forgay doctrine; the confirmation order effectively terminated the petitioners' rights to the property and they would suffer irreparable injury if appellate review was postponed until final judgment. 131 H. 457, 319 P.3d 376 (2014).
Denial of adjacent property owner's motion for post-judgment relief from trial court's orders granting property owner's motions for summary judgment regarding record title and adverse possession relating to claim for declaratory relief and voluntary dismissal of remaining claims did not constitute an appealable order. 135 H. 482, 353 P.3d 1024 (2015).
Appeal declared frivolous, where appellant appealed decree of foreclosure in a multiple claims and multiple parties case without an HRCP rule 54(b) certification and later argued lack of appellate jurisdiction because of lack of the certification. 2 H. App. 140, 627 P.2d 296 (1981).
Foreclosure decree is deemed final for appeal purposes although many matters remain unsettled. 2 H. App. 140, 627 P.2d 296 (1981).
Order awarding broker's fees in a foreclosure sale case does not have the finality required by subsection (a). 2 H. App. 151, 627 P.2d 304 (1981).
Interlocutory injunctions, when appealable without allowance of trial court. 2 H. App. 272, 630 P.2d 646 (1981).
Judgment in a multiple claims and multiple parties case is not reviewable absent certification under HRCP rule 54(b). 2 H. App. 296, 630 P.2d 1084 (1984).
Order was interlocutory where it decided liability but left relief pending. 5 H. App. 20, 674 P.2d 1024 (1984).
Not enlarged or modified by HRCP rule 54; where case involves multiple claims or parties, appellate jurisdiction of those fully decided claims or rights must be based on satisfaction of HRCP rule 54 requirements. 5 H. App. 222, 686 P.2d 37 (1984).
Order adjudging paternity but reserving child support, custody, and other matters is not final and appealable. 5 H. App. 610, 704 P.2d 940 (1985).
Interlocutory appeal by lienor must be sought under this section or HRCP rule 54(b). 7 H. App. 151, 748 P.2d 1370 (1988).
Court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal from summary judgment where claims of party in interest not named in notice of appeal remained pending. 8 H. App. 431, 807 P.2d 606 (1991).
Probate court's decision that a parcel of real property is not part of decedent's estate is an appealable collateral order. 83 H. 412 (App.), 927 P.2d 420 (1996).
Plaintiff's appeal of causation order untimely where plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of written order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file interlocutory appeal, but not within thirty days of order appealed from. 86 H. 301 (App.), 949 P.2d 141 (1997).
Where Hawaii supreme court entered an order dismissing the appeal of an order selling property, on the ground that "a final judgment closing the proceeding has not been entered" and the "order approving the sale of real property was an interlocutory order that was not certified for interlocutory appeal", appellate court did not have jurisdiction to decide the point on appeal. 105 H. 507 (App.), 100 P.3d 77 (2004).
Where all claims against all parties had not been finally decided when the notices of appeal were filed, appellate court did not have appellate jurisdiction and appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 112 H. 367 (App.), 145 P.3d 910 (2006).
Circuit court's order, to the extent that it denied defendant's request to compel arbitration, was an appealable order where order fell within a small class of orders that were appealable because "the rights conferred by chapter 658 [repealed], if applicable, would be lost, probably irreparably" if the party was required to wait until final judgment to effectively review the order. 118 H. 308 (App.), 188 P.3d 822 (2008).
Circuit court erred, where it approved a stipulation to extend the deadline for submitting plaintiff's notice of appeal without requiring a showing of good cause, as required by HRAP rule 4(a)(4)(A). 126 H. 92 (App.), 267 P.3d 676 (2011).