Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 91
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-11 (2026)

  Examination of evidence by agency

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

     §91-11  Examination of evidence by agency.  Whenever in a contested case the officials of the agency who are to render the final decision have not heard and examined all of the evidence, the decision, if adverse to a party to the proceeding other than the agency itself, shall not be made until a proposal for decision containing a statement of reasons and including determination of each issue of fact or law necessary to the proposed decision has been served upon the parties, and an opportunity has been afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present argument to the officials who are to render the decision, who shall personally consider the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by the parties. [L 1961, c 103, §11; Supp, §6C-11; HRS §91-11]

 

Case Notes

 

  Deviation from requirement that proposed decision be presented where the officials rendering the decision have not heard and examined all the evidence is not permissible.  52 H. 221, 473 P.2d 573.

  Procedural requirements of section may be waived pursuant to §91-9(d).  54 H. 10, 501 P.2d 358.

  Requirement that officials who are to render the decision personally consider the whole record or portions thereof cited by the parties is satisfied where the officials considered exceptions to the proposed decision and heard arguments thereon.  54 H. 10, 501 P.2d 358.

  Submission of proposed decision is required whether a single official or a majority of the officials have not heard the evidence.  54 H. 134, 504 P.2d 1214.

  "Final decision" construed.  57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292.

  Person filing timely exceptions is entitled to opportunity to present written and oral arguments, and to have exceptions considered on merits based on record.  65 H. 257, 650 P.2d 574.

  Under circumstances, board was not required to issue proposed decision.  65 H. 404, 652 P.2d 1143.

  Transcript of hearing conducted by hearing officer not required for hearing on exceptions held pursuant to this section.  65 H. 411, 652 P.2d 632.

  Where record reflected that the commissioner heard and examined all the evidence, and appellants pointed to no new evidence that the commissioner overlooked, the commissioner did not violate this section by amending hearing officer's recommended order, powers granted commissioner under Hawaii administrative rule §16-201-46, by failing to provide appellants yet another opportunity to repeat their previous arguments.  112 H. 90, 144 P.3d 1.

  As it is possible to give effect to §281-59 and this section insofar as a public hearing on a license application must be regarded as a contested case subject to the requirements of chapter 91, this section does not conflict with §281-59.  118 H. 320, 189 P.3d 432.

  Public hearings on liquor license applications held by the liquor commission are contested case hearings such that this section requires any commissioner who is not present at any stage of the public hearing to become familiar with the record before voting on a liquor license application, unless the application is automatically rejected pursuant to §281-59(a).   118 H. 320, 189 P.3d 432.

  The liquor commission's failure to comply with this section, requiring that all commissioners personally consider the entire record before voting on a liquor license application, was not a "failure to act" such as would trigger the automatic approval provision of §91-13.5 where the liquor commission voted, albeit ineffectively, within the fifteen day period prescribed by §281-59.  118 H. 320, 189 P.3d 432.

  Where a public hearing pertaining to the issuance of a liquor license was statutorily required under §§281-52 and 281-57, and petitioner's legal rights, duties, and privileges were determined based on the public hearing regarding the decision to grant or deny a liquor license to petitioner, the public hearing was a "contested case" hearing governed by chapter 91; thus, (1) petitioner was entitled to judicial review under §91-14, (2) this section applied to proceedings on petitioner's application for liquor license, and (3) the liquor commission did not comply with this section.  118 H. 320, 189 P.3d 432.

  Phrase "officials of the agency who are to render the final decision" refers to all members of the agency.  2 H. App. 672, 638 P.2d 1386.

  Board met minimum requirements of section by receiving briefs and hearing oral arguments.  5 H. App. 59, 678 P.2d 576.

  Question not preserved for appeal when party failed to object to denial of claim in agency's proposed order.  5 H. App. 533, 704 P.2d 917.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432 (Haw. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 189 P.3d 432 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 73× “y commissioner who is not present at any stage of the public hearing to become familiar with the record before voting on a liquor license application, unless the application is automatically rejected pursuant to HRS § 281-59(a) (2007), 4 (2) Re *323…”
Kapuwai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Dep't of Parks & Rec., 211 P.3d 750 (Haw. 2009). · cites it 26× “The central issue in E & J Lounge was whether the hearings held by the Commission constituted "contested case hearings" under HRS § 91-11 (1993) such that the Commission was required to follow the requirements of that statute.”
Trivectra v. Ushijima, 144 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2006). · cites it 20× “485; (3) that the commissioner's issuance of the final order without providing the Appellants an opportunity to respond to the findings of fact (FOFs) and conclusions of law (COLs) contained therein violated the Appellants' statutory rights under HRS § 91-11 (1993); [2] (4) that…”
Capua v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 184 P.3d 191 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 12× “After a hearing, held on May 23, 2003, the hearing officer entered a proposed decision and order, pursuant to HRS § 91-11 (1993), [6] *195 affirming the director's supplemental decision.”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 174 P.3d 367 (Haw. App. 2007). · cites it 30× “The circuit court also held that the Commission violated HRS § 91-11 (1993) [3] in denying E & J's application because although one of the Commissioners *369 who participated in the final decision was not present for the first day of public hearings on the application, the…”
White v. Bd. of Educ., 501 P.2d 358 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 16× “Thus, we cannot see how the teacher was prejudiced by the failure of the Board in not having adopted the report of the hearing officer as its “proposal for decision” before it was served upon the teacher.”
Wah Tim Chock v. Bitterman, 678 P.2d 576 (Haw. App. 1984). · cites it 13× “Appellant, in accordance with HRS § 91-11, filed written exceptions to the hearing officer’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order.”
Mitchell v. BWK Jt. Venture, 560 P.2d 1292 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 12× “Appellants claim that error was committed because that order was made in violation of HRS § 91-11. The administrative procedure act requires that officials of the agency who are to render a final decision in a contested case shall be familiar with the evidence relevant thereto.”
Application of Terminal Transp., Inc., 504 P.2d 1214 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 10× “HRS § 91-11 and § 91-12 are provisions of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act enacted in 1961.”
Surface Water Use Permit Applications, Integration of Appurtenant Rights & Amendments to the Interim Instream Flow Standards, Nā Wai 'Ehā Surface Water Mgmt. Areas of Waihe'e River, Waiehu Stream, Wailuku River, 550 P.3d 1167 (Haw. 2024). · cites it 20× “WWC appears to argue that pursuant to HRS § 91-11, the Commission thereafter should have issued its “own” proposed findings (separate from Miike’s) because the Commission made “wholesale” changes to Miike’s proposed findings,67 and that WWC should have had another 66 WWC does…”
Survivors of Cariaga v. Del Monte Corp., 652 P.2d 1143 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 13× “1 The issue is whether the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB), under HRS § 91-11 (1976), is first required to render a proposed decision before an adverse final order denying a claim for workers’ compensation *405 benefits after two of its three board members…”
Ariyoshi v. Hawaii Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 704 P.2d 917 (Haw. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “On October 6, 1982, in the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, their requests were denied.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.