§271-32 Reconsideration and rehearings.
(a) After any order or decision has been made by the public utilities
commission, any party to the proceeding may apply once for reconsideration or a
rehearing in respect to any matter determined in the proceeding and specified
in the motion for reconsideration or rehearing. The commission may grant the
motion if in its judgment sufficient reason is made to appear.
(b) The motion for reconsideration or a
rehearing shall be filed within ten days after the decision and order has been
served and shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the
applicant considers the decision or order to be unlawful. No person shall in
any court urge or rely on any ground not so set forth in the motion. If a
motion for reconsideration or rehearing is filed from a final decision and
order, the commission's order shall be automatically stayed until the
commission renders its final determination on the motion; provided that:
(1) No change in any rate, fare, or charge shall go
into effect while a motion for reconsideration or rehearing is pending
notwithstanding section 271-20(e);
(2) Any motion for reconsideration or rehearing shall
be determined and an order issued by the commission within forty-five days from
the filing date of the motion for reconsideration or rehearing; and
(3) The commission may set aside the automatic stay
in its discretion.
(c) A motion for reconsideration or rehearing
shall not excuse any person from complying with and obeying any order or
decision, or any requirement of any order or decision of the commission
theretofore made, or operate in any manner to stay or postpone the enforcement
thereof, except in such cases and upon such terms as the commission by order
directs.
(d) If, after reconsideration or rehearing the
commission is of the opinion that the original order or decision, or any part
thereof, is in any respect unjust or unwarranted, or should be changed, the
commission may abrogate, change, or modify it. The order or decision
abrogating, changing, or modifying the original order or decision shall have
the same force and effect as an original order or decision, but shall not
affect any right or the enforcement of any right arising from or by virtue of
the original order or decision unless so ordered by the commission.
(e) An appeal shall lie, subject to chapter
602, from every order made by the commission that is final, or if preliminary,
is of the nature defined by section 91-14(a), in the manner provided for civil
appeals from the circuit court; provided the order is made after
reconsideration or rehearing or is the subject of a motion for reconsideration
or rehearing, which the commission has denied. An appeal shall lie, subject to
chapter 602, in the manner provided for civil appeals from the circuit courts,
only by a person aggrieved in the contested case hearing provided for in this
section. [L 1961, c 121, pt of §2; Supp, §106C-30; HRS §271-32; am L 1979, c
127, §1; am L 1980, c 232, §8; am L 2000, c 167, §1; am L 2004, c 202, §31; am
L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]
Rules of Court
Appeals, see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Case Notes
Appellate court may not consider any error not set forth in
petition for reconsideration. 55 H. 463, 522 P.2d 1272 (1974).
Given that the "aggrieved party" provision of
subsection (e) did not apply to the case, supreme court had jurisdiction to
hear competitor's appeal; competitor appealed from a final order of the public
utilities commission and from the commission's denial of competitor's motion
for reconsideration; thus, competitor satisfied the requirements of subsection
(e) and §271-33. 104 H. 98, 85 P.3d 623 (2004).
The qualifying clause in subsection (e) neither limits
appeals to "contested" cases nor limits appeals to hearings held
pursuant to §271-31; subsection (e) is intended to apply only in the event that
the public utilities commission conducts a contested case hearing, limiting
standing to the "aggrieved" party in that hearing. 104 H. 98, 85
P.3d 623 (2004).
Where appellant failed to file, and obtain an adjudication
of, a motion for reconsideration of appellant's citation, there was no
appealable order under subsection (e) and §271-33; thus, appellant's failure to
file a motion for reconsideration precluded appeal to the intermediate court of
appeals. 113 H. 154 (App.), 149 P.3d 806 (2006).
Cited: 9 H. App. 240, 833 P.2d 93 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
In Re Robert's Tours & Transp., Inc., 85 P.3d 623 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 45× “4 HRS § 271-32 allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a PUC decision or order; subsection (e) allows a party to appeal a PUC decision or order to the supreme court, provided that the party has already filed, and the PUC has denied, a motion for reconsideration.”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006).
· cites it 24× “Based on Brandon's failure to follow the statutory procedure for perfecting his right to appeal under HRS § 271-32 (Supp.2005) and HRS § 271-33 (Supp.”
In Re Gray Line Hawai'i, Ltd., 995 P.2d 776 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 6× “16399, 16422, and 16423 are properly included in this appeal because, in view of HRS § 271-32(b) (1993), 4 all issues to be considered on appeal are set forth in the respective motions for reconsideration, the denials of which have been properly appealed.”
Application of Charley's Tour & Transp., Inc., 522 P.2d 1272 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 4× “) Both appellees (the Commission and the applicant) reply that the appellants cannot raise these procedural errors on appeal to this court because the errors were not specifically set forth in their petition for reconsideration to the Commission as required by HRS § 271-32(b).…”
In re Aloha Island Enter. LLC (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 21× “As explained below, Appellant Aloha Island Enterprises did not perfect its right to appeal pursuant to Hawafi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 271-32 (2007) and HRS § 271-33 (2007). Administrative appeals commence in a circuit court f[e]xcept as otherwise provided[.”
Ramos v. Est. of Elsenbach, 361 P.3d 1260 (Haw. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “3d 806, 810 (2006) this court utilized Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 6-61-21(e) (2005), which added two days to the prescribed period for filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing under HRS § 271-32(b) (2007 Repl.), to determine that appellant’s motion for…”
In re Akina Bus Serv., Ltd., 9 Haw. App. 240 (Haw. App. 1992).
“Under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 271-32(e) (1985), an aggrieved party may appeal from a final decision of the Commission, if the Commission has not acted on the aggrieved party’s motion for reconsideration within 20 days of its filing.”
Boyd v. Hawai'i State Ethics Comm'n, 358 P.3d 709 (Haw. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Thus, Boyd’s argument that he did not know that, as a State employee, he was required to abide by the Code of Ethics is no defense to the Commission’s charges.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 271-32(b) — 5 cases
In Re Gray Line Hawai'i, Ltd., 995 P.2d 776 (Haw. 2000).
“16399, 16422, and 16423 are properly included in this appeal because, in view of HRS § 271-32(b) (1993), 4 all issues to be considered on appeal are set forth in the respective motions for reconsideration, the denials of which have been properly appealed.”
Application of Charley's Tour & Transp., Inc., 522 P.2d 1272 (Haw. 1974).
“) Both appellees (the Commission and the applicant) reply that the appellants cannot raise these procedural errors on appeal to this court because the errors were not specifically set forth in their petition for reconsideration to the Commission as required by HRS § 271-32(b).…”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006).
“Based on Brandon's failure to follow the statutory procedure for perfecting his right to appeal under HRS § 271-32 (Supp.2005) and HRS § 271-33 (Supp.”
In re Aloha Island Enter. LLC (Haw. App. 2010).
“As explained below, Appellant Aloha Island Enterprises did not perfect its right to appeal pursuant to Hawafi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 271-32 (2007) and HRS § 271-33 (2007). Administrative appeals commence in a circuit court f[e]xcept as otherwise provided[.”
Ramos v. Est. of Elsenbach, 361 P.3d 1260 (Haw. App. 2015).
“3d 806, 810 (2006) this court utilized Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 6-61-21(e) (2005), which added two days to the prescribed period for filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing under HRS § 271-32(b) (2007 Repl.), to determine that appellant’s motion for…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 271-32(e) — 7 cases
In Re Robert's Tours & Transp., Inc., 85 P.3d 623 (Haw. 2004).
“4 HRS § 271-32 allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a PUC decision or order; subsection (e) allows a party to appeal a PUC decision or order to the supreme court, provided that the party has already filed, and the PUC has denied, a motion for reconsideration.”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006).
“Based on Brandon's failure to follow the statutory procedure for perfecting his right to appeal under HRS § 271-32 (Supp.2005) and HRS § 271-33 (Supp.”
In Re Gray Line Hawai'i, Ltd., 995 P.2d 776 (Haw. 2000).
“16399, 16422, and 16423 are properly included in this appeal because, in view of HRS § 271-32(b) (1993), 4 all issues to be considered on appeal are set forth in the respective motions for reconsideration, the denials of which have been properly appealed.”
In re Aloha Island Enter. LLC (Haw. App. 2010).
“As explained below, Appellant Aloha Island Enterprises did not perfect its right to appeal pursuant to Hawafi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 271-32 (2007) and HRS § 271-33 (2007). Administrative appeals commence in a circuit court f[e]xcept as otherwise provided[.”
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.