COM 0234.001 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable Timothy E. Johns July 21, 1999 Page 6 this reading. The terms used to describe a public highway in HRS § 264-1, are "opened, laid out, or built." (Emphasis added). If the legislature, when it enacted HRS § 264-1(a), had intended that only highways which had actually been built could qual_fy as public highways, it would not have used the disjunctive "or" to set apart the three verbs listed in the definition of "public highway." Moreover, there would have been no point to using the term "laid out" in the statute if the term independently of the other verbs in the section did not by itself mean "public highway." If the statute intended to include only reads that had in fact been constructed by the government, the term "laid out" would be meaningless surplusage. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is to give effect to all parts of a statute so that no clause, sentence. cr word is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which would give force to and preserve t, ~ all words of the statute. State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 351-52, 845 P.2d 547, 551-52 (1993), recon. denied, 74 Haw. 650, 849 P.2d 81 (1993). To use the terms "laid out" and "built" in the conjunctive would be redundant and would not give to "laid out" a separate meaning. Based upon the above, we are of the view that a road such as the homestead paper road on the Big Island which has been delineated on a subdivision map created by the government, falls within the definition of "public highway" under HRS § 264-1(a), even though the road does not exist on the ground.' "Attorney General Opinion No. 63-54 states that a "public highway" pursuant to § 142-1, Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955, which is the predecessor to § 264-1, HRS, "is a road or street actually constructed and existing on the ground. It does not refer to a mere `paper' road or an unimproved way not open to the general public as a road." We are now of the view that the statement in AG Op. 6=-54 is incorrect, but because the discussion on the status of paper roads was not relevant to the question posed in the opinion, the statement does not. affec*_ the conclusion. reached in AG Op. 63-54, nor is the statement control:..ing precedent in the present analysis.