opportunity for agency hearing in Hawaii

2022See HRS § 91-1 (a contested case proceeding is “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing”); HAR §§ 15- 219-84 and 15-219-85; Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 76 Hawai#i 128, 134, 870 P.2d 1272, 1278 (1994) (“If the statute or rule governing the activity in question does not mandate a hearing prior to the administrative agency’s decision-making, the actions of the administrative agency are not ‘required by law’ and do not amount to ‘a final decision or order in a contested case.’”

2005A contested case is defined in HRS § 91-1(5) (1993) as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing." In Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawai'i 128, 134 , 870 P.2d 1272, 1278 (1994), this court held: If the statute or rule governing the activity in question does not mandate a hearing[ [9] ] prior to the administrative agency's decision-making, the actions of the administrative agency are not "required by law" and do not amount to "a final decision or order in a contested case"

2024HRS § 91–1 (Supp. 2023) defines a "contested case" as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing." HRS § 91–1 defines an "agency -10- NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER hearing" as "such hearing held by an agency immediately prior to a judicial review of a contested case as provided in section 91–14."5 "Thus, '[a] contested case is an agency hearing that 1) is required by law and 2) determines the rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties.

2010Id. at 132, 139 P.3d at 720 (emphasis added).

2010See Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm’n, 61 Haw. 3, 8-9 , 594 P.2d 1079, 1082-83 (1979) (recognizing that persons living near property sought to be reclassified and those with “personal” and "special” "aesthetic and environmental interests” are "person[s] aggrieved" pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a)).

2010See Life of the Land v. Land Use Comm’n, 61 Haw. 3, 8-9 , 594 P.2d 1079, 1082-83 (1979) (recognizing that persons living near property sought to be reclassified and those with “personal” and "special” "aesthetic and environmental interests” are "person[s] aggrieved" pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a)).

1999Id. at 495-96, 522 P.2d at 1267 (emphases added) (footnote and citation omitted).

1977Since the phrase required by law embraces both constitutional as well as statutory law, see Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority, 55 Haw. 478, 496 , 522 P.2d 1255, 1267 (1974), ordinarily both would be examined to see if appellant was entitled to a hearing before his transfer.

2010HRS § 91-1(5) (1993) defines a “contested case” as “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” HRS § 91-1(6) (1993), in turn, defines an “agency hearing” as “such hearing held by an agency immediately prior to a judicial review of a contested case as provided in section 91-14.” Thus, “[a ] contested case is an agency hearing that [ (Jl) is required by law and [ (]2) determines the rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties.” [PASH], 79 Hawai'i at 431 , 903 P.2d [at] 1252

2006Access Shoreline Hawai'i v. Hawai'i County Planning Comm’n, 79 Hawai'i 425, 431 , 903 P.2d 1246 , 1252 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added) [hereinafter, PASH ]. 1.

2010Thus, the DOH hearings were “contested case[s]” because they were “proceeding^ in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties were required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” HRS § 91-1(5). 77 Hawai'i at 68 , 881 P.2d at 1214 .

2010Thus, the DOH hearings were “contested case[s]” because they were “proceeding^ in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties were required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” HRS § 91-1(5). 77 Hawai'i at 68 , 881 P.2d at 1214 .

2006Access Shoreline Hawai'i v. Hawai'i County Planning Comm’n, 79 Hawai'i 425, 431 , 903 P.2d 1246 , 1252 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added) [hereinafter, PASH ]. 1.

2005(Emphasis in original); see also PASH, 79 Hawai'i at 431 , 903 P.2d at 1252 .

1979HRS § 91-1(5) (1975) defines a contested case as “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” City and County of Honolulu v. P.U.C., 53 Haw. 431, 433 , 495 P.2d 1180, 1182 (1972) and In Re Hawaiian Electric Co., supra, 56 Haw. at 265 , 535 P.2d at 1106 , both require participation in a contested case as the other prerequisite for standing.

1979HRS § 91-1(5) (1975) defines a contested case as “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” City and County of Honolulu v. P.U.C., 53 Haw. 431, 433 , 495 P.2d 1180, 1182 (1972) and In Re Hawaiian Electric Co., supra, 56 Haw. at 265 , 535 P.2d at 1106 , both require participation in a contested case as the other prerequisite for standing.

2015Res., 131 Hawai'i 193, 205-06 , 317 P.3d 27, 39-40 (2013) (concluding that a contested case hearing was required “prior to decision making on UH’s application”), nor with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-1 (2012) (defining “contested case” to mean “a proceeding in which legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing”), nor with due process under the Hawaii Constitution (lack of meaningful opportunity to be heard compromised appearance of justice).

2015Res., 131 Hawai'i 193, 205-06 , 317 P.3d 27, 39-40 (2013) (concluding that a contested case hearing was required “prior to decision making on UH’s application”), nor with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-1 (2012) (defining “contested case” to mean “a proceeding in which legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing”), nor with due process under the Hawaii Constitution (lack of meaningful opportunity to be heard compromised appearance of justice).

2012An agency hearing is required by law if there is a “statutory, rule-based, or constitutional mandate for a hearing.” E & J Lounge, 118 Hawai'i at 330 , 189 P.3d at 442 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2012An agency hearing is required by law if there is a “statutory, rule-based, or constitutional mandate for a hearing.” E & J Lounge, 118 Hawai'i at 330 , 189 P.3d at 442 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2004“In order to determine whether [ap-pellees] participated in, or [are] entitled to, a contested case hearing, we must determine whether [appellees’] ‘legal rights, duties, or privileges ... are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.’ ” Alejado v. City & County of Honolulu, 89 Hawai'i 221, 226 , 971 P.2d 310, 315 (App.1998) (quoting HRS § 91-1(5)).

2004“In order to determine whether [ap-pellees] participated in, or [are] entitled to, a contested case hearing, we must determine whether [appellees’] ‘legal rights, duties, or privileges ... are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.’ ” Alejado v. City & County of Honolulu, 89 Hawai'i 221, 226 , 971 P.2d 310, 315 (App.1998) (quoting HRS § 91-1(5)).

1989Therefore, the permit application proceedings we considered in Chang and Mahuiki fell within *259 the definition of "contested case" as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing. " HRS § 91-1(5); Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 513 , 654 P.2d at 879 (emphasis added).

1989Therefore, the permit application proceedings we considered in Chang and Mahuiki fell within *259 the definition of "contested case" as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing. " HRS § 91-1(5); Mahuiki, 65 Haw. at 513 , 654 P.2d at 879 (emphasis added).

1982At the outset we observe the Makena Surfs SMA use permit application proceeding was a “contested case” within the meaning of HRS chapter 91, the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (“HAPA”), as the parties’ legal rights and duties “are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” HRS § 91-1(5) (1976); Planning Commission Rule 2-11.3. h; see City of Coronado v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 69 Cal. App.3d 570 , 138 Cal. Rptr. 241 (1977); Town v. Land Use Commission, 55 Haw. 538 , 524 P.2d 84 (1974).

1982At the outset we observe the Makena Surfs SMA use permit application proceeding was a “contested case” within the meaning of HRS chapter 91, the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (“HAPA”), as the parties’ legal rights and duties “are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” HRS § 91-1(5) (1976); Planning Commission Rule 2-11.3. h; see City of Coronado v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 69 Cal. App.3d 570 , 138 Cal. Rptr. 241 (1977); Town v. Land Use Commission, 55 Haw. 538 , 524 P.2d 84 (1974).

1979HRS § 91-1(5) (1975) defines a contested case as “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” City and County of Honolulu v. P.U.C., 53 Haw. 431, 433 , 495 P.2d 1180, 1182 (1972) and In Re Hawaiian Electric Co., supra, 56 Haw. at 265 , 535 P.2d at 1106 , both require participation in a contested case as the other prerequisite for standing.

1979HRS § 91-1(5) (1975) defines a contested case as “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.” City and County of Honolulu v. P.U.C., 53 Haw. 431, 433 , 495 P.2d 1180, 1182 (1972) and In Re Hawaiian Electric Co., supra, 56 Haw. at 265 , 535 P.2d at 1106 , both require participation in a contested case as the other prerequisite for standing.