§632-1  Jurisdiction; controversies subject
to.  In cases of actual controversy, courts of record, within the scope of
their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to make binding adjudications
of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or at the time could be,
claimed, and no action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground
that a judgment or order merely declaratory of right is prayed for; provided
that declaratory relief may not be obtained in any district court, or in any
controversy with respect to taxes, or in any case where a divorce or annulment
of marriage is sought.  Controversies involving the interpretation of deeds,
wills, other instruments of writing, statutes, municipal ordinances, and other
governmental regulations, may be so determined, and this enumeration does not
exclude other instances of actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right.



Relief by declaratory judgment may be granted
in civil cases where an actual controversy exists between contending parties,
or where the court is satisfied that antagonistic claims are present between
the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation, or
where in any such case the court is satisfied that a party asserts a legal
relation, status, right, or privilege in which the party has a concrete
interest and that there is a challenge or denial of the asserted relation,
status, right, or privilege by an adversary party who also has or asserts a
concrete interest therein, and the court is satisfied also that a declaratory
judgment will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to
the proceeding.  Where, however, a statute provides a special form of remedy
for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed; but the
mere fact that an actual or threatened controversy is susceptible of relief
through a general common law remedy, a remedy equitable in nature, or an
extraordinary legal remedy, whether such remedy is recognized or regulated by
statute or not, shall not debar a party from the privilege of obtaining a
declaratory judgment in any case where the other essentials to such relief are
present. [L 1921, c 162, §1; RL 1925, §2918; RL 1935, §4220; RL 1945, §9971; am
L 1945, c 74, §1; RL 1955, §228-1; HRS §632-1; am L 1972, c 89, §1(a) to (c);
gen ch 1985]



 



Rules of Court



 



  Declaratory judgments, see HRCP rule 57.



 



Case Notes



 



  Where cause of action exists party injured relegated to
established modes of procedure to redress wrong.  27 H. 420; 29 H. 122. 
Existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude seeking a declaration. 
48 H. 68, 395 P.2d 691.



  Proceedings not applicable to test title to usurped office in
private corporation.  27 H. 420.  Interpretation of lease.  31 H. 720. 
Declaratory relief granted to test validity of criminal statute, when.  47 H.
652, 394 P.2d 618.  Interpretation of real estate development contract.  49 H.
214, 412 P.2d 925.  Issue of decedent's domicile, declaratory judgment action
to determine.  50 H. 162, 434 P.2d 309.



  Action to determine validity of ordinances amending city's
general plan.  51 H. 400, 462 P.2d 199.



  Where there are conflicting interpretations on P's right to
rent supplement under §359-121 et seq., there is actual controversy.  53 H.
213, 491 P.2d 114.



  Where claims of parties are dismissed on a stipulation,
parties no longer have any concrete interest in an actual controversy, and
court may not render a declaratory judgment.  56 H. 104, 529 P.2d 198.



  Proceedings for interpretation of constitutional provision
not permitted where no immediate need.  57 H. 213, 552 P.2d 1392.



  Actual controversy where plaintiffs have "stake" in
outcome but are neither owners or adjoining owners of lands subject to use
reclassification.  63 H. 166, 623 P.2d 431.



  Section precluded in issues arising under workers
compensation law.  64 H. 380, 641 P.2d 1333.



  Action for declaratory judgment did not lie because review
was subject to section 91-14.  66 H. 485, 666 P.2d 1133.



  Circuit court had jurisdiction over plaintiff's §632-1
petition for declaratory relief.  Court was not required to defer to agency's
determination; court could make its own independent findings regarding the
salient facts of the case.  75 H. 237, 858 P.2d 726.



  Although plaintiffs were neither owners nor adjoining owners
of development project, where they asserted that they were long time and
frequent users of the coastline and that project may cause irreversible changes
to the coastline, they nonetheless alleged an injury in fact sufficient to
constitute standing to participate in a declaratory judgment action.  91 H. 94,
979 P.2d 1120.



  Where there was no actual controversy because the fee owners
were requesting a declaratory judgment based on the expiration of the master
lease, an event that was to occur at some time in the future, there was no
actual controversy in existence at the time; therefore, the relief that the fee
owners had requested was properly denied under this section.  104 H. 468, 92
P.3d 477.



  As it has long been established that declaratory relief is
not appropriate for criminal matters "where a full and adequate remedy is
provided by another well-known form of action", particularly by testing
the statute in a criminal proceeding, case lacked the special circumstances
that would warrant declarative action.  109 H. 230, 124 P.3d 975.



  No jurisdiction to entertain declaratory judgment to pass
upon validity of release of mechanic's and materialman's lien.  2 H. App. 132,
627 P.2d 291.



  Taxpayer's request for confirmation that under chapter 420 it
was a valid business development corporation that was exempt from taxes based
on income, was a "controversy with respect to taxes" for which
declaratory relief was unavailable under this section.  92 H. 659 (App.), 994
P.2d 591.



  This section did not authorize trial court to decide the
declaratory judgment action when insurer of insured/alleged tortfeasor brought
declaratory judgment action that insurer did not have a duty to defend or
indemnify the insured/alleged tortfeasor regarding the motor vehicle accident
and the declaratory judgment action was only against the alleged victim and not
the insured/alleged tortfeasor.  94 H. 498 (App.), 17 P.3d 847.