Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41 (2026)

REPEALED

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART IV. ZONING

§183-41 REPEALED. L 1994, c 270, §3.

Cross References

For present provisions, see chapter 183C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Hawaii Elec. Light Co. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 75 P.3d 160 (Haw. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hawaii Elec. Light Co. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 75 P.3d 160 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 73× “Consequently, we also hold that because the Board failed to render four votes either approving or rejecting a Conservation District Use Application (application) in this case, the HRS § 183-41 (1993) 5 180-day default provision allowed the applicant to subject its land to the…”

Keahole Def. Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 134 P.3d 585 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 28× “In tandem with litigation over what then became CDUP (conservation district use permit) HA-487A, Appellant-Appellee Keahole Defense Coalition (KDC) maintained a separate action, filed in the court on February 5, 1997, against the Department of Health (DOH), BLNR, and HELCO.”

Stop H-3 Ass'n v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Transp., 706 P.2d 446 (Haw. 1985). · cites it 30× “8 While authority over rural, urban, and agricultural districts is vested in the respective county governments, conservation districts are to be administered by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (hereinafter the Department) pursuant to guidelines prescribed by…”

In Re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 2× “, HRS § 183-41 (1993) (repealed 1994) (automatically granting applicant’s proposed use of conservation distinct land at expiration of 180-day statutory period); HRS § 91-13.”

E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 2× “Thus, “because the Board failed to render four votes either approving or rejecting” the subject application, it was deemed granted by operation of the default provision contained in HRS § 183-41 (1993). Id. In contrast, in the instant case, three members of the Commission, which…”

Pele Def. Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 881 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 2× “4 (citing HRS § 183-41(c)(1) (Supp.1992)); however, Simpson never requested a contested case hearing.”

Town v. Land Use Comm'n, 524 P.2d 84 (Haw. 1974). · cites it 4× “cre and a minimum lot size of not less than one-half acre shall be included; (3) In the establishment of the boundaries of agricultural districts the greatest possible protection shall be given to those lands with a high capacity for intensive cultivation; and (4) In the…”

Pearl Ridge Estates Cmty. Ass'n v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 648 P.2d 702 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 4× “See HRS § 183-41. Thus, neither the language nor the history of HRS § 343-4 furnishes reasonable grounds for construing it to apply to conservation district boundary amendments, particularly when boundary proposals implicating agricultural and rural lands obviously are not…”

Morimoto v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 113 P.3d 172 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “Thus, this court restricted its inquiry to whether the applicable statute, HRS § 183-41, authorized the issuance of the CDUP.”

Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. App. 2009). “Any structure or action in violation of this provision shall be immediately removed or stopped and the property owner shall be fined in accordance with section 183-41(e). Any action taken to impose or collect the penalty provided for in this subsection shall be considered a…”

McGlone v. Inaba, 636 P.2d 158 (Haw. 1981). “HRS § 183-41. Lot 718 is not classified as conservation and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the BLNR.”

Kaupiko v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources. Concurring & Dissenting Opinion by McKenna, J [ada]., 555 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2024). · cites it 4× “” That case involved HRS § 183-41(a) (1993) (repealed 1994), which provided, “if within one hundred eighty days after receipt of the application the department shall fail to give notice, hold a hearing, and render a decision, .”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(a) — 3 cases

Hawaii Elec. Light Co. v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Resources, 75 P.3d 160 (Haw. 2003). “Consequently, we also hold that because the Board failed to render four votes either approving or rejecting a Conservation District Use Application (application) in this case, the HRS § 183-41 (1993) 5 180-day default provision allowed the applicant to subject its land to the…”

Stop H-3 Ass'n v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Transp., 706 P.2d 446 (Haw. 1985). “8 While authority over rural, urban, and agricultural districts is vested in the respective county governments, conservation districts are to be administered by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources (hereinafter the Department) pursuant to guidelines prescribed by…”

Kaupiko v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources. Concurring & Dissenting Opinion by McKenna, J [ada]., 555 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2024). “” That case involved HRS § 183-41(a) (1993) (repealed 1994), which provided, “if within one hundred eighty days after receipt of the application the department shall fail to give notice, hold a hearing, and render a decision, .”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(b) — 1 case

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(c)(1) — 2 cases

Pele Def. Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 881 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1994). “4 (citing HRS § 183-41(c)(1) (Supp.1992)); however, Simpson never requested a contested case hearing.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(c)(2) — 1 case

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(c)(3) — 1 case

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(c)(l) — 1 case

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 183-41(e) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.