[§659-6]  Judgment as to offices; burden of proof.  [(a)]  If a person to whom an order is directed with respect to an office of which the person performs the duties does not answer within the time allowed or the answer is insufficient or it is found that the person has usurped the office or continues in it unlawfully, the court in addition to declaring the person not qualified to fill the office and forbidding the person to perform the duties of the office any longer, may direct that a new appointment be made and may grant other appropriate relief.

     [(b)]  If the proceeding is commenced by verified petition of the attorney general and concerns a public office, the respondent shall have the burden of proof. [L 1876, c 39, §41; RL 1925, §2721; RL 1935, §4263; RL 1945, §10284; RL 1955, §236-24; HRS §659-51; am L 1972, c 90, §3(f); ren HRS §659-6; gen ch 1985]

Case Notes

  Circuit court erred in allocating burden of proof to quo warranto petitioner, rather than respondent, because once a writ for quo warranto has been issued, the burden of proof rests upon the respondent.  It was not petitioner's burden to prove that respondent was not qualified for the office she held as director of the department of environmental management, or to prove that the Hawaii county council and Hawaii county mayor abused their discretion in interpreting the county charter of Hawaii; instead, it was respondent's burden to prove that she was qualified for the office she held.  139 H. 129 (App.), 384 P.3d 905 (2016).