Source: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0602/HRS_0602-0005.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:54:47+00:00

Document:
(6) To make and award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the promotion of justice in matters pending before it.
Judiciary report to 2019 legislature on change in judicial proceedings made by L 2016, c 48. L 2016, c 48, §12.
The repeal and reenactment note at subsection (a) in the main volume is amended to read as follows: "[Repeal and reenactment on July 1, 2019. L 2016, c 48, §14; L 2017, c 99, §1.]".
Certification of questions by federal courts, see HRAP rule 13.
Power of supreme court to preserve status quo or effectiveness of the judgment subsequently to be entered, see HRCP rule 62(g).
Questions of law reserved, see HRAP rule 15.
Writs, see HRAP rule 21.
Judicial Legislation in the Supreme Court of Hawaii: A Brief Introduction to the "Knowne Uncertaintie" of the Law. 7 HBJ, no. 2, at 58 (1970).
Judicial Legislation in the Supreme Court of Hawaii: A Brief Introduction to the "Felt Necessities of the Time." 8 HBJ, no. 3, at 77 (1971).
Contemporary Contempt: The State of the Law in Hawaii. I HBJ, no. 13, at 59 (1997).
Through the Looking Glass--Finality, Interlocutory Appeals and the Hawaii Supreme Court's Supervisory Powers. 9 UH L. Rev. 87 (1987).
Reversals of Fortune: The Hawaii Supreme Court, the Memorandum Opinion, and the Realignment of Political Power in Post-statehood Hawai‘i. 14 UH L. Rev. 17 (1992).
The inherent power of the supreme court to make orders "for the promotion of justice" under paragraph (7) required that motorist be given an opportunity to challenge the lifetime revocation of motorist's license where one of the three predicate convictions on which revocation had been based had been set aside; motorist was thus entitled to have district court amend motorist's revocation period pursuant to §286-261 upon the presentation of proof that motorist's driving record no longer supported the revocation period imposed. 94 H. 232, 11 P.3d 457 (2000).
Section 174C-60 is inconsistent with and cannot stand together with this section and §602-57, as amended by Act 202, L 2004, and was deemed amended by implication, effective July 1, 2006, to authorize appeals from the water commission to the intermediate appellate court, not to the supreme court. 113 H. 52, 147 P.3d 836 (2006).
After an appeal has been perfected the supreme court has power to require a husband to advance to a wife necessary attorney's fee in divorce. 25 H. 793, 797 (1921). Section 580-9 applies to the supreme court. 30 H. 61, 65 (1927). Distinguished in 30 H. 80, 90 (1927).
No jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees for services on appeal in probate case. 43 H. 171 (1959).
Cited: 76 H. 396, 879 P.2d 501 (1994).
Where Congress has not expressly set out exclusive jurisdiction, state courts are competent to decide federal claims. 437 F. Supp. 368 (1977).
No original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to individuals, 22 H. 589 (1915); nor in election contests, 15 H. 323 (1903). See also 23 H. 387, 407 (1916).
Supreme court will not determine moot question. See 23 H. 387, 406 (1916); 25 H. 51 (1919); 26 H. 171 (1921); 32 H. 818 (1933); 33 H. 278 (1935); 35 H. 565 (1940).
As to habeas corpus. 26 H. 363 (1922).
Question of jurisdiction of subject matter can be raised for first time on appeal. 36 H. 75 (1942).
Lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or jurisdiction conferred by agreement of parties. 40 H. 475 (1954); 57 H. 133, 552 P.2d 75 (1976).
Court will not generally decide moot questions of law, but exception is made where questions affect the public interest. 50 H. 379, 441 P.2d 138 (1968); 59 H. 244, 580 P.2d 405 (1978); 62 H. 391, 616 P.2d 201 (1980).
Supreme court does not have original jurisdiction of writ of prohibition directed against prosecutors. 51 H. 589, 465 P.2d 549 (1970).
Supreme court has no original jurisdiction to issue mandamus to an individual. 54 H. 274, 506 P.2d 8 (1973).
Supreme court does not have jurisdiction for an appeal from interlocutory orders of the district courts in criminal cases. 57 H. 133, 552 P.2d 75 (1976).
Court would not entertain application for writ of prohibition on grounds not presented in the trial court. 57 H. 284, 554 P.2d 1128 (1976).
Without a special reason appellate court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court. 57 H. 411, 557 P.2d 787 (1976).
Cited as supporting claim that supreme court has jurisdiction to determine validity of constitutional amendment procedures. 60 H. 324, 590 P.2d 543 (1979).
Court had jurisdiction over action seeking to enjoin chief election officer from placing proposed constitutional amendments on election ballot. 73 H. 536, 836 P.2d 1066 (1992).
Jurisdiction properly lies in supreme court to hear and determine appeals from district court judgments after an administrative hearing, pursuant to paragraph (1) and §641-1(a). 75 H. 1, 856 P.2d 1207 (1993).
Where defendant's interlocutory appeal from district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds did not satisfy prerequisites of collateral order exception, supreme court did not have to decide whether exception may apply to appeals from collateral orders of district court. 82 H. 446, 923 P.2d 388 (1996).
Discussed: 875 F. Supp. 680 (1995).
Judgment of territorial supreme court, affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals, was binding on supreme court of Hawaii. 441 F. Supp. 559 (1977).
Inherent power to preserve status quo pending appeal. 18 H. 269, 270 (1907); 42 H. 192 (1957). Granting of injunction to preserve status quo pending appeal. 51 H. 480, 463 P.2d 530 (1969).
Supreme court has no power to amend a so-called record of a district court on appeal. 19 H. 187 (1908).
A motion for such amendment should be presented to the district court. 19 H. 317 (1909); 24 H. 600, 605 (1919).
Mandamus in aid of appellate jurisdiction. 54 H. 294, 506 P.2d 444 (1973).
Under paragraph (7), in the promotion of justice, supreme court has power to reduce fines for civil contempt. 55 H. 386, 520 P.2d 422 (1974).
Judgment vacated for promotion of justice. 56 H. 170, 532 P.2d 391 (1975).
Supreme court cannot disregard jurisdictional defects in an appeal. 57 H. 61, 549 P.2d 477 (1976).
Where circuit court exceeded its authority, writ of prohibition by supreme court held proper remedy. 57 H. 289, 554 P.2d 1131 (1976).
No cross appeal is necessary for appellate court to review a question closely related to a question raised on appeal. 57 H. 599, 561 P.2d 1286 (1977).
Prohibition, when granted, res judicata. 59 H. 224, 580 P.2d 49 (1978).
Prohibition, issuance. 59 H. 237, 580 P.2d 58 (1978); 67 H. 259, 686 P.2d 16 (1984).
Paragraph (7) cited in directing a different judge to hear a case on remand. 59 H. 592, 585 P.2d 1259 (1978).
Standard for issuance of mandamus. 64 H. 307, 640 P.2d 289 (1982).
Where chief justice did not have duty to administer oath of office, mandamus against chief justice did not lie; thus, petition for writ of mandamus denied. 76 H. 273, 874 P.2d 1098 (1994).
Paragraph (7) permits appellate court to modify trial court's judgment of conviction if interests of justice would be promoted. 9 H. App. 263, 833 P.2d 902 (1992).
Mentioned: 74 H. 75, 837 P.2d 776 (1992); 79 H. 26, 897 P.2d 953 (1995).
Further hearing granted after decision on point not previously argued. 10 H. 338 (1896).
Principles stated as to circumstances under which a motion for a rehearing will be granted. 10 H. 338 (1896); cited 25 H. 776 (1921). See 33 H. 632 (1935); 35 H. 252 (1939); 35 H. 349 (1940); 40 H. 640 (1954); 40 H. 734 (1955); 42 H. 352 (1958); 44 H. 684, 361 P.2d 383 (1961); 47 H. 466, 471, 390 P.2d 737 (1964); 48 H. 149, 151, 396 P.2d 826 (1964); 49 H. 267, 269, 414 P.2d 428 (1966); 49 H. 574, 423 P.2d 437 (1967); 50 H. 40, 429 P.2d 829 (1967).
Question not jurisdictional and not raised by pleadings or in appellant's specifications of error nor in their brief comes too late when presented for first time during oral argument. 25 H. 438, 444 (1920), aff'd 269 F. 751 (1921).
Rehearing denied on immaterial issue, 28 H. 157; but see dissent; 28 H. 208 (1925); 28 H. 383 (1925). See 33 H. 632 (1935); 34 H. 8 (1936); 35 H. 349 (1940); 35 H. 545 (1940); 36 H. 230 (1942); 36 H. 710 (1944); 49 H. 267, 271, note 4, 414 P.2d 428 (1966).

References: §12
 §14
 §1
 §286
 §602
 §641