[§634-35]  Acts submitting to jurisdiction.  (a)  Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, the person's personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the acts:

     (1)  The transaction of any business within this State;

     (2)  The commission of a tortious act within this State;

     (3)  The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated in this State;

     (4)  Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of contracting.

     (b)  Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State, as provided in this section, may be made as provided by section 634-36, if the person cannot be found in the State, with the same force and effect as though summons had been personally served within this State.

     (c)  Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over the defendant is based upon this section.

     (d)  Nothing herein contained limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereafter provided by law. [L 1965, c 134, §1; Supp, §230-41.5; HRS §634-71; am L 1972, c 89, §2A(n); ren HRS §634-35; gen ch 1985]


Rules of Court


  See HRCP rule 4.


Law Journals and Reviews


  Jurisdiction Under Hawaii's New "Long Arm" Statute.  4 HBJ, no. 1, at 4 (1966).

  Products Liability in Hawaii.  14 HBJ, no. 4, at 127 (1979).


Case Notes


  Negligent manufacture outside the State, resulting in injury in the State, constituted "commission of tortious act within the State".  417 F.2d 231 (1969).

  Requirement of minimum contact to satisfy due process discussed in holding manufacturer in England subject to state jurisdiction.  417 F.2d 231 (1969).

  Under both the "transacting business" and "tortious act" clauses of this section, the cause of action must relate to the defendant's contacts in the State.  558 F.2d 948 (1977).

  Does not express "strong policy" that insurance cases must be tried in State despite contrary insurance contract clause.  738 F.2d 1455 (1984).

  Definition of term "doing or carrying on business" in Hawaii statute relating to foreign corporations and filing does not restrict or limit definition or scope of term "transaction of business" in statute.  253 F. Supp. 588 (1966).

  Sufficiency of contact with State for application of statute.  290 F. Supp. 848 (1968).

  Plaintiff made a prima facie case that the court had specific personal jurisdiction over defendant; the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process and defendant's contacts with Hawaii, as alleged and evidenced by plaintiff, satisfied Hawaii's long-arm statute.  664 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (2008).

  Prerequisites of minimum contacts to satisfy due process discussed.  54 H. 597, 513 P.2d 165 (1973).

  Minimum contact requirement held not met in a medical malpractice action.  56 H. 306, 536 P.2d 568 (1975).

  Tort is "committed in this State" when the injury occurs in this State.  56 H. 306, 536 P.2d 568 (1975).

  Facts held sufficient to constitute transaction of business in State.  59 H. 189, 579 P.2d 99 (1978).

  Establishment of contractual relationship through the mail; "transaction of business"; minimum contact.  61 H. 644, 608 P.2d 394 (1980).

  Expands jurisdiction of Hawaii's courts to extent permitted by due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  61 H. 644, 608 P.2d 394 (1980).

  Plaintiff had not demonstrated that defendant was "transacting business" in Hawaii; plaintiff sufficiently alleged a prima facie case that defendant committed a "tortious act within this State" for purposes of subsection (a)(2); plaintiff sufficiently alleged a tortious breach of contract to satisfy demands of due process.  76 H. 323, 876 P.2d 1291 (1994).

  Defendant California theme park's advertising in a national magazine and on an internet website was not "the transaction of any business within this State"; also, where plaintiff's injury occurred on a roller coaster ride in defendant's California theme park, the alleged tortious acts occurred in California; thus, trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants under this section.  102 H. 203, 74 P.3d 26 (2003).



Previous Vol13_Ch0601-0676 Next