§1-9  Express or implied repeals.  Therepeal of a law is either express or implied.  It is express when it isliterally declared by a subsequent law; it is implied when the new law containsprovisions contrary to, or irreconcilable with, those of the former law. [CC1859, §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 impliedlyrepeals 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 itselfrepealed.  9 H. 171, 177.  Provision applicable at a later time does notsupersede 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 sectionfixes the rule on the subject of implied repeals.  20 H. 170, 171.

  Where attempt apparently made to repeal expressly all formerlaws intended to be repealed, repeal by implication not found.  9 H. 402, 404.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 arerepealed.  22 H. 183; 24 H. 12.

  For later statute covering entire subject matter of earlierstatute to repeal the earlier statute, the legislative intent to repeal must beclear.  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  Court should not, merely by application of maxim expressiounius exclusio alterius, find common law superseded in area not mentioned instatute.  49 H. 624, 628, 425 P.2d 1014; see 37 H. 571, 574.

 

General and special laws.

  General (affirmative) law does not abrogate earlier specialone by mere implication.  9 H. 402, 404.  But when later act covers wholesubject matter, repeal by implication found.  30 H. 658; 50 H. 277, 439 P.2d206.  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 statuteprescribes special rule applicable to certain class and another statuteprescribes general rule, repeal of special statute renders general statuteapplicable to the special class and this is not a revivor of a repealed statute. 10 H. 241; 23 H. 558, 561; 44 H. 634, 648, 361 P.2d 390.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 twostatutes 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 anotherby previous law does not repeal earlier law by implication; jurisdictionconcurrent 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 butmerely 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; wherestatute 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 andenacted, original statutes may be referred to and the later enactmentcontrols.  23 H. 91, 95; 28 H. 744, 751.

 

Other instances.

  Repeal of laws conferring exclusive fishing rights repealspenal provision applicable to violation of such rights.  16 H. 306.  Lawprohibiting infamous punishment supersedes provision for hard labor but notprovision for imprisonment.  17 H. 428, 438; 23 H. 91.  Employee blanketed intocivil service is no longer removable at pleasure though so removable whenappointed. 30 H. 477.