contested case hearing in Hawaii

2025Comm’n, 79 Hawaiʻi 425, 431, 903 P.2d 1246, 1252 (1995). “‘[T]here are four requirements for judicial review over an agency appeal: a contested case hearing, finality, compliance with agency rule, and standing.’” Cmty. Ass’ns of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Plan.

2025Comm’n, 79 Hawaiʻi 425, 431, 903 P.2d 1246 , 1252 (1995). “‘[T]here are four requirements for judicial review over an agency appeal: a contested case hearing, finality, compliance with agency rule, and standing.’” Cmty. Ass’ns of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Plan.

2025The circuit court erred by concluding it did not have jurisdiction over the Hui's action for declaratory and injunctive relief.6 (2) The State contends the circuit court erred by making finding of fact no. 12, "finding that [BLNR] did not issue findings that continuing the permit was in the best interests of the state or about whether the permit complies with the public 5 The Hui could have appealed BLNR's denial of a formal request for a contested case hearing under HRS § 91-14, Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawai#i 1, 26, 237 P.3d 1067, 1092 (2010), but requesting a contested case is not a prere

2024As to the County’s argument that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the case because there was no contested case hearing held, the plaintiffs counter-argued that a court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a contested case hearing prior to an agency action, citing Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawaiʻi 1, 26, 237 P.3d 1067, 1092 (2010).

2025In Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, BLNR voted to approve tentative permits for the applicant to build a telescope on Mauna Kea then directed a contested case hearing be held. 136 Hawaiʻi at 380, 363 P.3d at 228.

2025In Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, BLNR voted to approve tentative permits for the applicant to build a telescope on Mauna Kea then directed a contested case hearing be held. 136 Hawaiʻi at 380, 363 P.3d at 228 .

2025Simply put, BLNR’s denial of Sierra Club’s hearing request was followed by agency action that ended the proceedings. 13 In Kilakila, this court reaffirmed that an agency’s subsequent decision on a given matter in the absence of a contested case hearing required by due process constitutes a “final decision and order” from which an aggrieved party may appeal pursuant to HRS § 91-14. 131 Hawaiʻi at 203, 317 P.3d at 37.

2025As Justice Acoba correctly noted in his concurring opinion in Kilakila, “[T]his court has taken a functional approach to what can be considered a contested case hearing for purposes of judicial review, consistent with the policy of favoring judicial review of administrative actions.” 131 Hawaiʻi at 214, 317 P.3d at 48 (Acoba, J. concurring) (internal quotation omitted).

2025The Hawai#i Supreme Court has articulated a two-step analysis for determining whether a party has a constitutional due process right to a contested case hearing: First, this court considers whether "the particular interest which claimant seeks to protect by a hearing is 'property' within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions." Second, if this court concludes that the interest is "property," this court analyzes "what specific procedures are required to protect it." Flores, 143 Hawai#i at 125, 424 P.3d at 480 (brackets and citations omitted) (quoting Sandy

2025The Hawai#i Supreme Court has articulated a two-step analysis for determining whether a party has a constitutional due process right to a contested case hearing: First, this court considers whether "the particular interest which claimant seeks to protect by a hearing is 'property' within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions." Second, if this court concludes that the interest is "property," this court analyzes "what specific procedures are required to protect it." Flores, 143 Hawai#i at 125, 424 P.3d at 480 (brackets and citations omitted) (quoting Sandy

2012In addition, in Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Commission, 76 Hawai'i 128, 131 , 870 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1994), this court concluded that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to review an agency appeal because a contested case hearing did not precede the appeal, as required under HRS § 91-14.

2012In addition, in Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Commission, 76 Hawai'i 128, 131 , 870 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1994), this court concluded that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to review an agency appeal because a contested case hearing did not precede the appeal, as required under HRS § 91-14.

2010Mahuiki v. Planning Comm’n, 65 Haw. 506, 513 , 654 P.2d 874, 879 (1982) (concluding that this characteristic is an “obvious” element of a contested case hearing); see also Town v. Land Use Comm’n, 55 Haw. 538, 548 , 524 P.2d 84, 91 (1974) (holding that adjacent property owner has a property interest in the amendment of a district boundary).

2010Mahuiki v. Planning Comm’n, 65 Haw. 506, 513 , 654 P.2d 874, 879 (1982) (concluding that this characteristic is an “obvious” element of a contested case hearing); see also Town v. Land Use Comm’n, 55 Haw. 538, 548 , 524 P.2d 84, 91 (1974) (holding that adjacent property owner has a property interest in the amendment of a district boundary).

2019Res. , 136 Hawai'i 376 , 380, 363 P.3d 224 , 228 (2015), Kilakila , 131 Hawai'i at 195 , 204 , 317 P.3d at 29 , 38 , Kaleikini v. Thielen , 124 Hawai'i 1 , 4, 237 P.3d 1067 , 1070 (2010), and Pele Defense Fund , 77 Hawai'i at 66 , 881 P.2d at 1212 , for the proposition that "at the very least, a party must have requested a contested case hearing before it can object to the denial of such a hearing." To the contrary, this court's case law does not require a party to request a hearing to gain access to the courts, where the relevant agency has not promulgated a rule requiring such a request and

2019Res. , 136 Hawai'i 376 , 380, 363 P.3d 224 , 228 (2015), Kilakila , 131 Hawai'i at 195 , 204 , 317 P.3d at 29 , 38 , Kaleikini v. Thielen , 124 Hawai'i 1 , 4, 237 P.3d 1067 , 1070 (2010), and Pele Defense Fund , 77 Hawai'i at 66 , 881 P.2d at 1212 , for the proposition that "at the very least, a party must have requested a contested case hearing before it can object to the denial of such a hearing." To the contrary, this court's case law does not require a party to request a hearing to gain access to the courts, where the relevant agency has not promulgated a rule requiring such a request and

2025The Hawai#i Supreme Court has articulated a two-step analysis for determining whether a party has a constitutional due process right to a contested case hearing: First, this court considers whether "the particular interest which claimant seeks to protect by a hearing is 'property' within the meaning of the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions." Second, if this court concludes that the interest is "property," this court analyzes "what specific procedures are required to protect it." Flores, 143 Hawai#i at 125, 424 P.3d at 480 (brackets and citations omitted) (quoting Sandy

2025Cf. Flores, 143 Hawai#i at 127, 424 P.3d at 482 (appellant participated in a prior contested case hearing on the issuance of the subject permit); Sierra Club, 154 Hawai#i at 282, 550 P.3d at 248 (appellant participated in a recent trial of a lawsuit challenging earlier permit continuations).

2012Additionally, WWC analogizes the setting of an IIFS to the designation of a water management area (WMA) in Ko’olau, where a contested case hearing was not required. 11 Elaborating on footnote 15 of Waiāhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d at 431 n. 15, the majority states that this court has jurisdiction based on constitutional due process because the IIFS, independent of any WUPA, affects property interests of Hui/ MTF’s members.

2012Additionally, WWC analogizes the setting of an IIFS to the designation of a water management area (WMA) in Ko’olau, where a contested case hearing was not required. 11 Elaborating on footnote 15 of Waiāhole I, 94 Hawai'i at 119 n. 15, 9 P.3d at 431 n. 15, the majority states that this court has jurisdiction based on constitutional due process because the IIFS, independent of any WUPA, affects property interests of Hui/ MTF’s members.

2022In McGlone v. Inaba, 64 Haw. 27 , 636 P.2d 158 (1981), abrogated in part by Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 215-16 , 685 P.2d 794, 796-97 (1984) (disavowing McGlone to the extent it suggests an agency's conclusions of law are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard), the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved the defendants' conservation district use application (CDUA) during a regularly scheduled meeting, without requiring the defendants to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

2022In McGlone v. Inaba, 64 Haw. 27 , 636 P.2d 158 (1981), abrogated in part by Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 215-16 , 685 P.2d 794, 796-97 (1984) (disavowing McGlone to the extent it suggests an agency's conclusions of law are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard), the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved the defendants' conservation district use application (CDUA) during a regularly scheduled meeting, without requiring the defendants to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).

2015See Kilakila 'O Haleakala, 131 Hawai'i at 209 , 317 P.3d at 43 (Acoba, J., concurring) (reasoning that the appellants’ assertion—that their traditional and customary practices would be adversely affected by the agency’s action—triggered their right to a contested case hearing); ‘Iao, 128 Hawai'i at 271 , 287 P.3d at 172 (Acoba, J., concurring) ("[W]here native Hawaiian Petitioners claim that their native Hawaiian rights are adversely affected by the [Land Use Commission’s] decision ... they may sue to enforce their rights under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution.’’); Kaleikini

2015See Kilakila 'O Haleakala, 131 Hawai'i at 209 , 317 P.3d at 43 (Acoba, J., concurring) (reasoning that the appellants’ assertion—that their traditional and customary practices would be adversely affected by the agency’s action—triggered their right to a contested case hearing); ‘Iao, 128 Hawai'i at 271 , 287 P.3d at 172 (Acoba, J., concurring) ("[W]here native Hawaiian Petitioners claim that their native Hawaiian rights are adversely affected by the [Land Use Commission’s] decision ... they may sue to enforce their rights under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawai'i Constitution.’’); Kaleikini

2013See also In re ‘Iao, 128 Hawai'i at 274 , 287 P.3d at 175 (Acoba, J., concurring) (“Applying Puna Geothermal, [plaintiffs] would be entitled to a contested case hearing as a matter of due process if they claimed that their constitutional rights were adversely affected by the permit applications of [defendants].”); Town v. Land Use Comm’n., 55 Haw. 538, 548 , 524 P.2d 84, 91 (1974) (allowing plaintiffs who owned adjoining property to challenge the Land Use Commission’s approval of a landowner’s petition to change the designation of his property as a “contested case”).

2013See also In re ‘Iao, 128 Hawai'i at 274 , 287 P.3d at 175 (Acoba, J., concurring) (“Applying Puna Geothermal, [plaintiffs] would be entitled to a contested case hearing as a matter of due process if they claimed that their constitutional rights were adversely affected by the permit applications of [defendants].”); Town v. Land Use Comm’n., 55 Haw. 538, 548 , 524 P.2d 84, 91 (1974) (allowing plaintiffs who owned adjoining property to challenge the Land Use Commission’s approval of a landowner’s petition to change the designation of his property as a “contested case”).

2012Bd. of Dirs., 100 Hawai'i 242, 277 , 59 P.3d 877, 912 (2002) (concluding that “[t]he original legislative history of [the Hawai'i Environmental Procedures Act] ... contemplated that a plaintiff would be considered an ‘aggrieved party’ with standing [to appeal] only if the party had exhausted available administrative review processes by participating in a contested case hearing, as specified in [HRS chapter 91]” (citing Stand.

2012Bd. of Dirs., 100 Hawai'i 242, 277 , 59 P.3d 877, 912 (2002) (concluding that “[t]he original legislative history of [the Hawai'i Environmental Procedures Act] ... contemplated that a plaintiff would be considered an ‘aggrieved party’ with standing [to appeal] only if the party had exhausted available administrative review processes by participating in a contested case hearing, as specified in [HRS chapter 91]” (citing Stand.

2012A party must have participated in a contested case hearing in order to subsequently appeal as a "person aggrieved." See Int'l Bhd. of Painters & Allied Trades, Drywall Tapers, Finishers & Allied Workers v. Befitel, 104 Hawai`i 275, 88 P.3d 647, 653 (2004)(explaining that, under HRS § 91-14, "[t]o be entitled to judicial review of the [agency] decision, appellees must have participated in a `contested case' hearing") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Sierra Club v. Haw.

2008See also Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City, 114 Hawai'i 184, 197 , 159 P.3d 143, 156 (2007) (explaining that HRS chapter 91 provides a “means of seeking review of agency determinations” whereby “[f]inal agency decisions or orders in contested eases may be appealed to the circuit court as provided in HRS § 91-14” (footnote omitted)); Int’l Bhd. of Painters & Allied Trades, Drywall Tapers, Finishers & Allied Workers Local Union 1944 v. Befitel, 104 Hawai'i 275, 281 , 88 P.3d 647, 653 (2004) (stating that “appellees must have participated in a contested case hearing”

1999These arguments wholly misapprehend and blur the distinction between standing to participate in a contested case hearing under HRS § 91-14 and standing in an action for declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1 (1993). 5 *100 As a general rule, “[standing is the aspect of justiciability focusing on the party seeking a forum rather than on the issues he wants adjudicated.” Hawai'i’s Thousand Friends v. Anderson, 70 Haw. 276, 281 , 768 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1989) (quoting Life of the Land v. Land Use Commission, 63 Haw. 166, 172 , 623 P.2d 431, 438 (1981)).

1999These arguments wholly misapprehend and blur the distinction between standing to participate in a contested case hearing under HRS § 91-14 and standing in an action for declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1 (1993). 5 *100 As a general rule, “[standing is the aspect of justiciability focusing on the party seeking a forum rather than on the issues he wants adjudicated.” Hawai'i’s Thousand Friends v. Anderson, 70 Haw. 276, 281 , 768 P.2d 1293, 1298 (1989) (quoting Life of the Land v. Land Use Commission, 63 Haw. 166, 172 , 623 P.2d 431, 438 (1981)).

2019We thus determined that “inasmuch as the DLNR had properly promulgated specific procedures for a contested case hearing . . . and the Appellants failed to follow the requisite procedures, there was no contested case from which the Appellants could appeal, pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a).” Id. at 41, 143 P.3d at 1243 .

2019We thus determined that "inasmuch as the DLNR had properly promulgated specific procedures for a contested case hearing ... and the Appellants failed to follow the requisite procedures, there was no contested case from which the Appellants could appeal, pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a)." Id. at 41, 143 P.3d at 1243 .

2012This court acknowledged the hui's argument that, absent judicial review of the decision to deny a contested case hearing, "any agency could arbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone a hearing at any time, regardless of whether such hearing were required by law, and the aggrieved party could never obtain judicial review of such denial." Id. at 137, 139 P.3d at 725 .

2010The Kaniakapupu court, however, acknowledged the argument raised by the Hui that, “if the circuit court has no jurisdiction to determine if an appellant were entitled to a contested case hearing after having requested one, any agency could arbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone a hearing at any time, regardless of whether such hearing were required by law, and the aggrieved party could never obtain judicial review of such denial.” Id. at 137 , 139 P.3d at 725 (original brackets omitted).

2010See also Simpson v. Dep’t of Land & Natural Res., 8 Haw.App. 16, 24-25 , 791 P.2d 1267, 1273 (1990) (holding that a public hearing required by law is not a contested case where (1) the agency has properly promulgated specific procedures for a contested case hearing and (2) a party has failed to follow such procedures). .

2010See also Simpson v. Dep’t of Land & Natural Res., 8 Haw.App. 16, 24-25 , 791 P.2d 1267, 1273 (1990) (holding that a public hearing required by law is not a contested case where (1) the agency has properly promulgated specific procedures for a contested case hearing and (2) a party has failed to follow such procedures). .

2019E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of City & Cty. of Honolulu , 118 Hawai'i 320 , 333, 189 P.3d 432 , 445 (2008).

2019E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of City & Cty. of Honolulu , 118 Hawai'i 320 , 333, 189 P.3d 432 , 445 (2008).

2012HRS § 174C-60 states, "[ajny other law to the contrary not withstanding, including chapter 91, any contested case hearing under this section shall be appealed upon the record directly to the supreme court for final decision.” This would not appear to be a basis for jurisdiction of this case but refers to the procedure to follow, assuming jurisdiction exists in the first place. .The HC & S brief indicates that the Commission could have used “any number of procedural vehicles, including procedures patterned after a contested case hearing." It analogizes the hearing in this case to a "discretiona

2012HRS § 174C-60 states, "[ajny other law to the contrary not withstanding, including chapter 91, any contested case hearing under this section shall be appealed upon the record directly to the supreme court for final decision.” This would not appear to be a basis for jurisdiction of this case but refers to the procedure to follow, assuming jurisdiction exists in the first place. .The HC & S brief indicates that the Commission could have used “any number of procedural vehicles, including procedures patterned after a contested case hearing." It analogizes the hearing in this case to a "discretiona

2013KOH followed all applicable agency rules in requesting a contested case hearing The third part of the PASH/Kaleikini test “requires a determination [of] whether the claimant followed the applicable agency rules and, therefore, was involved in the contested case.” Id. at 26, 237 P.3d at 1092 (ellipses, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting PASH, 79 Hawai'i at 431 , 903 P.2d at 1252 ).

2013As noted, in order to satisfy HRS § 91-14(a) where no contested ease hearing has in fact been held, a contested case hearing must have been “required by law.” PASH, 79 Hawai'i at 431 , 903 P.2d at 1252 .

2025On appeal, Appellants contend that the Circuit Court erred in affirming the denial of the Petition by: (1) incorrectly concluding that (a) the Petition was a policy challenge to the administrative rules, (b) vacating the CUPs via a contested case hearing would prejudice the Companies, (c) no statute or rule required a contested case hearing prior to issuance of the CUPs, and (d) there was no need to determine whether due process required a contested case hearing; (2) wrongly rejecting Appellants' claim that BLNR failed to fulfill its affirmative duty to "protect Native Hawaiian rights by perfo

2023And, as we explained in Ka Pa‘akai in the contested case hearing context, “[r]equiring these minimal prerequisites facilitates precisely what the 1978 Constitutional Convention delegates sought: ‘badly needed judicial guidance’ and the ‘enforcement by the courts of these rights[.]’” 94 Hawai‘i at 50, 7 P.3d at 1087 (quoting Stand.

2024In Mortensen a statute — HRS § 88-73 — required a contested case hearing by the Board of Trustees of the Hawai#i Employees' Retirement System on state employees' applications for accidental disability retirement benefits. 52 Haw. at 217-18 , 473 P.2d at 870 .

2024In Mortensen a statute — HRS § 88-73 — required a contested case hearing by the Board of Trustees of the Hawai#i Employees' Retirement System on state employees' applications for accidental disability retirement benefits. 52 Haw. at 217-18 , 473 P.2d at 870 .

2019Accordingly, to determine whether LOL was entitled to a contested case hearing pursuant to constitutional due process, we must first determine whether LOL possesses “an interest which qualifies as ‘property’ within the meaning of the constitution.” Id.

2019Accordingly, to determine whether LOL was entitled to a contested case hearing pursuant to constitutional due process, we must first determine whether LOL possesses "an interest which qualifies as 'property' within the meaning of the constitution." Id.

2018On March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a minute order stating that the parties would be permitted to submit briefs and present oral arguments to address whether, pursuant to this court's order remanding the case for further proceedings and in light of In Re Wai'ola O Moloka'i , 103 Hawai'i 401 , 83 P.3d 664 (2004), the original contested case hearing should continue or be dismissed.

2018On March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a minute order stating that the parties would be permitted to submit briefs and present oral arguments to address whether, pursuant to this court's order remanding the case for further proceedings and in light of In Re Wai'ola O Moloka'i , 103 Hawai'i 401 , 83 P.3d 664 (2004), the original contested case hearing should continue or be dismissed.

2025Mauna Kea II (2018) In Matter of Conservation District Use Application HA- 3568 (Mauna Kea II), 10 decided seven years ago, the plaintiffs appealed the BLNR's grant of the University of Hawaii's application for development of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) following a contested case hearing. 143 Hawai‘i 379, 384, 387, 431 P.3d 752, 757, 760 (2018).

2025The issue before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court was "whether the BLNR properly applied the law in analyzing whether a permit should be issued for the TMT." Id. at 384, 431 P.3d at 757 .