§1-9  Express or implied repeals.  The
repeal of a law is either express or implied.  It is express when it is
literally declared by a subsequent law; it is implied when the new law contains
provisions contrary to, or irreconcilable with, those of the former law. [CC
1859, §21; RL 1925, §23; RL 1935, §25; RL 1945, §25; RL 1955, §1-12; HRS §1-9]



 



Case Notes



 



Generally.



  Amendment intended to take place of previous act impliedly
repeals it.  9 H. 171, 176.  Though amendatory act expressly repeals chapter amended,
effect is that amended chapter takes place of previous law and is not itself
repealed.  9 H. 171, 177.  Provision applicable at a later time does not
supersede present provision immediately.  17 H. 23.



  Repeals by implication not favored.  9 H. 402, 404; 20 H.
170; 26 H. 469, 472; 30 H. 658, 663; 42 H. 518; 69 F.2d 954.  This section
fixes the rule on the subject of implied repeals.  20 H. 170, 171.



  Where attempt apparently made to repeal expressly all former
laws intended to be repealed, repeal by implication not found.  9 H. 402, 404. 
Express repeal by void act, earlier act remains in force.  14 H. 215, 221. 
Where statute amended "to read as follows" parts omitted are
repealed.  22 H. 183; 24 H. 12.



  For later statute covering entire subject matter of earlier
statute to repeal the earlier statute, the legislative intent to repeal must be
clear.  50 H. 351, 440 P.2d 528.



  Repeals by implication not favored.  54 H. 519, 511 P.2d 161.



 



Common law.



  Court should not, merely by application of maxim expressio
unius exclusio alterius, find common law superseded in area not mentioned in
statute.  49 H. 624, 628, 425 P.2d 1014; see 37 H. 571, 574.



 



General and special laws.



  General (affirmative) law does not abrogate earlier special
one by mere implication.  9 H. 402, 404.  But when later act covers whole
subject matter, repeal by implication found.  30 H. 658; 50 H. 277, 439 P.2d
206.  Special statute controls general without regard to priority of enactment. 
8 H. 381, 382; 34 H. 484, 488-9; 45 H. 650, 662, 372 P.2d 348.  Where statute
prescribes special rule applicable to certain class and another statute
prescribes general rule, repeal of special statute renders general statute
applicable to the special class and this is not a revivor of a repealed statute. 
10 H. 241; 23 H. 558, 561; 44 H. 634, 648, 361 P.2d 390.



  Specific statute is favored over general one when two
statutes cover same subject.  54 H. 250, 505 P.2d 1179.



 



Joint resolution of annexation.



  Effect of on Hawaiian laws, see 12 H. 58; 190 U.S. 197. 
Referred to:  3 H. 90, 98; 7 H. 359, 362; 16 H. 769, 781; 18 H. 485, 487; 22 H.
96, 107.



 



Jurisdiction; remedies.



  Law conferring on one court jurisdiction conferred on another
by previous law does not repeal earlier law by implication; jurisdiction
concurrent unless later law confers exclusive jurisdiction.  1 H. 31; 10 H.
476; 19 H. 106, 116; see 7 H. 270.  Same where statutory remedy enacted but
merely permissive or not complete; earlier remedy still exists.  3 H. 127, 137;
3 H. 618; 12 H. 12, 13; 14 H. 554, 564; 26 H. 89, 91; 40 H. 397, 412; see 10 H.
507.  Compare where statutory remedy not merely cumulative, 5 H. 57; where
statute itself confers the right, 3 H. 127, 136; 3 H. 618, 621; 5 H. 57, 58. 
Tax appeals, exclusiveness of statutory remedy.  14 H. 117.



 



Revised laws.



  Where repugnant statutes are carried into revised laws and
enacted, original statutes may be referred to and the later enactment
controls.  23 H. 91, 95; 28 H. 744, 751.



 



Other instances.



  Repeal of laws conferring exclusive fishing rights repeals
penal provision applicable to violation of such rights.  16 H. 306.  Law
prohibiting infamous punishment supersedes provision for hard labor but not
provision for imprisonment.  17 H. 428, 438; 23 H. 91.  Employee blanketed into
civil service is no longer removable at pleasure though so removable when
appointed. 30 H. 477.