§91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice.
In contested cases:
(1) Except as provided in section 91-8.5, any oral or
documentary evidence may be received, but every agency shall as a matter of
policy provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly
repetitious evidence and no sanction shall be imposed or rule or order be
issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof
as may be cited by any party and as supported by and in accordance with the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agencies shall give effect
to the rules of privilege recognized by law;
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available; provided that
upon request parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the
original;
(3) Every party shall have the right to conduct such
cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the
facts, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence;
(4) Agencies may take notice of judicially
recognizable facts. In addition, they may take notice of generally recognized
technical or scientific facts within their specialized knowledge; but parties
shall be notified either before or during the hearing, or by reference in
preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material so noticed, and they shall be
afforded an opportunity to contest the facts so noticed; and
(5) Except as otherwise provided by law, the party
initiating the proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the burden
of producing evidence as well as the burden of persuasion. The degree or
quantum of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence. [L 1961, c 103, §10;
Supp, §6C-10; HRS §91-10; am L 1978, c 76, §1; am L 2003, c 76, §3]
Law Journals and Reviews
Reoccurring Cultural Insensitivity: Confronting the
Abdication of Core Judicial Functions. 43 UH L. Rev. 341 (2021).
A Litigator's Approach to Issues Concerning Exercise and
Protection of Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Rights. 43 UH L. Rev.
592 (2021).
Case Notes
Agencies are to admit any and all evidence, limited only by
considerations of relevancy, materiality, and repetition. 54 H. 479, 510 P.2d
89; 5 H. App. 59, 678 P.2d 576.
Commissioner's "view" of premises in a land use
boundary case without proper notice to party violated par. (4). 55 H. 538, 524
P.2d 84.
Paragraph (3) applied. 55 H. 538, 524 P.2d 84.
Mere admission of irrelevant or incompetent evidence not
reversible error. 59 H. 388, 583 P.2d 313; 5 H. App. 59, 678 P.2d 576.
Acceptance of certain mathematical calculations not subject
to cross-examination or rebuttal testimony. 65 H. 293, 651 P.2d 475.
Party was properly assigned burden of proof. 66 H. 538, 669
P.2d 148.
Agency properly disallowed rebuttal testimony involving no
new evidence or argument. 67 H. 425, 690 P.2d 274.
Zoning board of appeals did not exceed its statutory
authority by hearing evidence and considering documents verifying that
appellants were permitting zoning violation to continue on their property;
rules of evidence in administrative hearings allow admission of hearsay
evidence. 77 H. 168, 883 P.2d 629.
Appellant had not met burden of demonstrating a violation of
paragraph (3) by board of medical examiners; board did not err in admitting
evidence of judgment of conviction and police reports. 78 H. 21, 889 P.2d 705.
Where unlikely that cross-examination of witnesses on appeal
would have unearthed anything of particular value regarding legal arguments or
subjective feelings of witnesses who had already testified before hearings
officer, right to cross-examine witnesses not unduly infringed by department of
land utilization's two-tiered mechanism of review. 87 H. 217, 953 P.2d 1315.
Agency properly disallowed repetitious testimony. 4 H. App.
633, 675 P.2d 784.
Cited: 132 H. 9, 319 P.3d 1017 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Tauese v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 147 P.3d 785 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 14× “) The legislative history of HRS § 91-10 indicates that in 1978, the legislature amended HAPA to provide that in contested case hearings, “the party initiating the proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of…”
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 16× “" HRS § 91-10(1) (2012). Just like judges, agency adjudicators are required to “give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law,” HRS § 91-10(1) (2012), and they are authorized to "take notice of judicially recognizable facts," HRS § 91-10(4).”
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
· cites it 9× “13 to HAR § 2—51—43(h) (“Rules of evidence as specified in HRS § 91-10 shall be applicable ...” to a hearing before the Board challenging voter registration prior to election day).”
Loui v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 889 P.2d 705 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Because the Board of Medical Examiners is an agency within the definition of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act, 22 HRS § 91-10 governs the rules of evidence in this case.”
Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 953 P.2d 1315 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 6× “Furthermore, “[e]very party shall have the right to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts, and shall have ■ the right to submit rebuttal evidence.” HRS § 91-10(3) (1993).”
Town v. Land Use Comm'n, 524 P.2d 84 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 12× “HRS § 91-10(3) states: § 91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice.”
Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC., 306 P.3d 140 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 8× “-11- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** proceeding pursuant to HRS § 91-10(5) because Liberty initiated the Reconsideration proceeding and acknowledged in writing its burden of proof.”
Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 651 P.2d 475 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 16× “PUD also argues that HTC failed to establish that Exhibit 23 was relevant, material, and not unduly repetitious, which PUD contends is required by HRS § 91-10(1) (1976). PUD further alleges that HTC made several technical errors in its intrastate rate base calculations.”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 174 P.3d 367 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 14× “" E & J urges us to affirm the circuit court's "determination that liquor license application public hearings are adjudicatory in nature and therefore must comply with the contested-case procedures and specifically the rules of evidence as set forth in HRS § 91-10." DISCUSSION…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(1) — 17 cases
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016).
“" HRS § 91-10(1) (2012). Just like judges, agency adjudicators are required to “give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law,” HRS § 91-10(1) (2012), and they are authorized to "take notice of judicially recognizable facts," HRS § 91-10(4).”
Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 651 P.2d 475 (Haw. 1982).
“PUD also argues that HTC failed to establish that Exhibit 23 was relevant, material, and not unduly repetitious, which PUD contends is required by HRS § 91-10(1) (1976). PUD further alleges that HTC made several technical errors in its intrastate rate base calculations.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(3) — 11 cases
Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 953 P.2d 1315 (Haw. 1998).
“Furthermore, “[e]very party shall have the right to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts, and shall have ■ the right to submit rebuttal evidence.” HRS § 91-10(3) (1993).”
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016).
“" HRS § 91-10(1) (2012). Just like judges, agency adjudicators are required to “give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law,” HRS § 91-10(1) (2012), and they are authorized to "take notice of judicially recognizable facts," HRS § 91-10(4).”
Loui v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 889 P.2d 705 (Haw. 1995).
“Because the Board of Medical Examiners is an agency within the definition of the Hawai'i Administrative Procedure Act, 22 HRS § 91-10 governs the rules of evidence in this case.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(3)(1976) — 1 case
Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 651 P.2d 475 (Haw. 1982).
“PUD also argues that HTC failed to establish that Exhibit 23 was relevant, material, and not unduly repetitious, which PUD contends is required by HRS § 91-10(1) (1976). PUD further alleges that HTC made several technical errors in its intrastate rate base calculations.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(4) — 5 cases
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016).
“" HRS § 91-10(1) (2012). Just like judges, agency adjudicators are required to “give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law,” HRS § 91-10(1) (2012), and they are authorized to "take notice of judicially recognizable facts," HRS § 91-10(4).”
Town v. Land Use Comm'n, 524 P.2d 84 (Haw. 1974).
“HRS § 91-10(3) states: § 91-10 Rules of evidence; official notice.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-10(5) — 28 cases
Tauese v. State, Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 147 P.3d 785 (Haw. 2006).
“) The legislative history of HRS § 91-10 indicates that in 1978, the legislature amended HAPA to provide that in contested case hearings, “the party initiating the proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of…”
Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC., 306 P.3d 140 (Haw. 2013).
“-11- ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** proceeding pursuant to HRS § 91-10(5) because Liberty initiated the Reconsideration proceeding and acknowledged in writing its burden of proof.”
Dupree v. Hiraga, 219 P.3d 1084 (Haw. 2009).
“13 to HAR § 2—51—43(h) (“Rules of evidence as specified in HRS § 91-10 shall be applicable ...” to a hearing before the Board challenging voter registration prior to election day).”
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.