What courts must know without being told

These superseded provisions mandated judicial notice "of the common law and statutes of every state, territory, and other jurisdiction of the United States" and of county ordinances, and provided for judicial determination of foreign and other laws. Subsection (b): This adds to the mandatory category U.S. Supreme Court and local court rules and is consistent with Schoening v. Miner, 22 H. 196, 202 (1914), where the court said: "[R]ules made by a judge of a circuit court, and approved by this court, should be judicially noticed by this court." Subsection (c): The early Hawaii case law considered foreign law an issue of fact that required pleading and proof and was subject to determination by the trier of fact. In Board of Immigration v. Estrella, 5 H. 211, 214 (1884), for example, the court said, "A foreign law, relied upon as a defense, must be proved, like any other fact in the case." Hawaii Rev. Stat. §623-3 (1976) (repealed 1980) provided simply that "the law of a [foreign country] shall be an issue for the court, but shall not be subject to ... judicial notice." This rule includes foreign law among those items that may be judicially noticed. Subsection (d): This provision is based upon the last two sentences of HRCP 44.1, which provides: The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under Rule 43. The court's determination shall be treated as ruling on a question of law. The subsection extends the provisions of this court rule to every category of law subject to judicial notice under Rule 202.