[§205-19] Contested cases. (a)
Chapter 91 shall apply to every contested case arising under this chapter
except where chapter 91 conflicts with this chapter, in which case this chapter
shall apply. Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, including chapter
91, any contested case under this chapter shall be appealed from a final
decision and order or a preliminary ruling that is of the nature defined by
section 91-14(a) upon the record directly to the supreme court for final
decision. Only a person aggrieved in a contested case proceeding provided for
in this chapter may appeal from the final decision and order or preliminary
ruling. For the purposes of this section, the term "person
aggrieved" includes an agency that is a party to a contested case
proceeding before that agency or another agency.
(b) The court shall give priority to contested
case appeals of significant statewide importance over all other civil or
administrative appeals or matters and shall decide these appeals as
expeditiously as possible. [L 2016, c 48, §§3, 14; am L 2019, c 213, §1]
Note
Judiciary report to 2019 legislature on change in judicial
proceedings made by L 2016, c 48. L 2016, c 48, §11.
Repeal of section on July 1, 2019, by L 2016, c 48, §14, as
shown in the main volume, deleted by L 2019, c 213, §1.
The source note to this section is amended to read as
follows: "L 2016, c 48, §§3, 14; am L 2019, c 213, §1".
Notes of Decisions
The Cmty. Associations of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Plan. Comm'n., 500 P.3d 426 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 19× “See HRS §§ 205-19 (2017) and 91-14 (2017). The special permit application requested approval to use an agricultural parcel of land as an equipment base yard and security dwelling, and for stockpiling and crushing natural materials for commercial use.”
In re: The Petition of Ku'ulei Higashi Kanahele & Ahiena Kanahele., 526 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 12× “Therefore, because HRS § 205-19 authorizes this court to directly review orders from contested cases, HRS § 205-19 also authorizes this court to directly review orders granting or denying declaratory order petitions, given the shared status of declaratory and contested case…”
Rosehill v. State of Hawai'i., 556 P.3d 387 (Haw. 2024).
· cites it 8× “3d at 488–89 (citing HRS § 205-19) (“any contested case under this chapter shall be appealed from a final decision and order or a preliminary ruling that is of the nature defined by section 91-14(a) upon the record directly to the supreme court for final decision.”
Lana'ians for Sensible Growth v. Land Use Comm'n., 463 P.3d 1153 (Haw. 2020).
“STANDARDS OF REVIEW Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 205-19 (Supp. 2016), this court reviews LUC decisions under the standards set forth in the judicial review provision of the Hawai‘i Administrative Procedures Act, HRS § 91-14(g).”
Abrams v. Maui Plan. Comm'n (Haw. App. 2025).
· cites it 14× “Nâ Hînano argues in part that the Land Use Commission (LUC), rather than MPC, "should have held the contested case, and the matter appealed to the Hawai#i [S]upreme [C]ourt, not the circuit court[,]" under HRS § 205-19. We agree in part with Nâ Hînano's argument, i.”
Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State. (Haw. 2025).
· cites it 4× “See HRS § 205-19 (2017) (allowing appeals of final LUC decisions, including of contested cases, “directly to the supreme court for final decision”); see also id.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-19(a) — 4 cases
Rosehill v. State of Hawai'i., 556 P.3d 387 (Haw. 2024).
“3d at 488–89 (citing HRS § 205-19) (“any contested case under this chapter shall be appealed from a final decision and order or a preliminary ruling that is of the nature defined by section 91-14(a) upon the record directly to the supreme court for final decision.”
The Cmty. Associations of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Plan. Comm'n., 500 P.3d 426 (Haw. 2021).
“See HRS §§ 205-19 (2017) and 91-14 (2017). The special permit application requested approval to use an agricultural parcel of land as an equipment base yard and security dwelling, and for stockpiling and crushing natural materials for commercial use.”
In re: The Petition of Ku'ulei Higashi Kanahele & Ahiena Kanahele., 526 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2023).
“Therefore, because HRS § 205-19 authorizes this court to directly review orders from contested cases, HRS § 205-19 also authorizes this court to directly review orders granting or denying declaratory order petitions, given the shared status of declaratory and contested case…”
Abrams v. Maui Plan. Comm'n (Haw. App. 2025).
“Nâ Hînano argues in part that the Land Use Commission (LUC), rather than MPC, "should have held the contested case, and the matter appealed to the Hawai#i [S]upreme [C]ourt, not the circuit court[,]" under HRS § 205-19. We agree in part with Nâ Hînano's argument, i.”
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.