Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 271-33 (2026)

  Appeals

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §271-33  Appeals.  From the order made on an application for reconsideration or rehearing by the public utilities commission under this chapter, an appeal shall lie, subject to chapter 602, in the manner and within the time provided for civil appeals from the circuit courts and by the rules of court; provided that the order is final, or if preliminary, is of the nature defined by section 91-14(a).  The appeal, of itself, shall not stay the operation of the order appealed from, but the court may stay the same after a hearing upon a motion therefor and may impose such conditions as it may deem proper as to giving a bond and keeping the necessary accounts or otherwise to secure a restitution of the excess charges, if any, made during the pendency of the appeal, in case the order appealed from is sustained, reversed, or modified in whole or in part. [L 1961, c 121, pt of §2; Supp, §106C-31; HRS §271-33; am L 1973, c 149, §2(d); am L 1979, c 111, §13; am L 2004, c 202, §32; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

 

Cross References

 

  Appeals under administrative procedure act, see chapter 91.

 

Rules of Court

 

  Appeals, see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 

Case Notes

 

  Given that the "aggrieved party" provision of §271-32(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 §271-32(e) and this section.  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 §271-32(e) and this section; 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:  50 H. 172, 435 P.2d 21 (1967).

  Referred to:  50 H. 22, 428 P.2d 411 (1967); 53 H. 14, 486 P.2d 413 (1971).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2015 · leading case: In Re Robert's Tours & Transp., Inc., 85 P.3d 623 (Haw. 2004).
In Re Robert's Tours & Transp., Inc., 85 P.3d 623 (Haw. 2004). · cites it 26× “Within HRS Chapter 271, there are two relevant statutory provisions governing appeals: HRS § 271-32(e) (1993) 3 and HRS § 271-33 (1993). 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…”
In Re Brandon, 149 P.3d 806 (Haw. App. 2006). · cites it 17× “2005) and HRS § 271-33 (Supp.2005), we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
In Re Gray Line Hawai'i, Ltd., 995 P.2d 776 (Haw. 2000). · cites it 2× “1998), HRS § 271-32(e) (1993), HRS § 271-33 (1993), HRS § 271G-24 (1993).”
In Re W. Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 486 P.2d 413 (Haw. 1971). · cites it 2× “1 HRS § 271-33 provides: “Appeals. From every order made on an application for reconsideration or rehearing by the public utilities commission under this chapter, an appeal shall lie to the supreme court in like manner as an appeal lies for an order or decision of a circuit…”
In re Aloha Island Enter. LLC (Haw. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “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[.”
Jack's Tours, Inc. v. Kilauea Military Camp, 145 P.3d 693 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 2× “HRS § 271-33 (1993) provided in relevant part that, "[f]rom the order made on an application for reconsideration or rehearing by the [PUC] under this chapter, an appeal shall lie to the supreme court subject to chapter 602 in the manner and within the time provided by chapter…”
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.”
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.