This article was renumbered from Article V to be Article VI by Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978.  The former Article VI now appears as Article VII.




     Section 1.  The judicial power of the State shall be vested in one supreme court, one intermediate appellate court, circuit courts, district courts and in such other courts as the legislature may from time to time establish.  The several courts shall have original and appellate jurisdiction as provided by law and shall establish time limits for disposition of cases in accordance with their rules. [Ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]


Law Journals and Reviews


  Judicial Independence:  The Hawaii Experience.  2 UH L. Rev. 1.

  The Price of Precedent:  Anastasoff v. United States.  23 UH L. Rev. 795.

  Hawai‘i's Justiciability Doctrine.  26 UH L. Rev. 537.

  The Development of Hawai‘i's Appellate Courts:  An Organizational Perspective.  33 UH L. Rev. 875 (2011).


Case Notes


  Where Congress has not expressly set out exclusive jurisdiction, state courts are competent to decide federal claims.  437 F. Supp. 368.

  Section 605-1, concerning bar examinations, does not invade judicial functions.  44 H. 27, 352 P.2d 607.

  Judicial power and venue requirements distinguished.  53 H. 398, 495 P.2d 585.

  Supreme court has jurisdiction over matter relating to incorporation of attorneys.  55 H. 121, 516 P.2d 1267.

  Article V, §6 and this section, neither separately nor together prohibit the establishment of the administrative driver’s license revocation office in the judiciary.  91 H. 212 (App.), 982 P.2d 346.

  Given the mandatory nature of the case-or-controversy requirement in federal courts, it would also be possible to perfect standing during the course of litigation in state courts where the state constitution does not contain case-or-controversy language; by perfecting its interest in appellants' mortgage prior to the order granting summary judgment and entry of the decree of foreclosure in bank's favor, bank effectively cured its lack of standing at the initiation of the lawsuit.  117 H. 506 (App.), 184 P.3d 821.

  As nothing in chapter 103F expressly precluded judicial review, it did not violate the separation of powers doctrine; judicial review was available in connection with chapter 103F by way of a declaratory action under §632-1.  127 H. 76, 276 P.3d 645 (2012).



Previous Vol01_Ch0001-0042F Next