§91-12 Decisions and orders. Every
decision and order adverse to a party to the proceeding, rendered by an agency
in a contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be
accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. If any party
to the proceeding has filed proposed findings of fact, the agency shall
incorporate in its decision a ruling upon each proposed finding so presented.
The agency shall notify the parties to the proceeding by delivering or mailing
a certified copy of the decision and order and accompanying findings and
conclusions within a reasonable time to each party or to the party's attorney
of record. [L 1961, c 103, §12; Supp, §6C-12; HRS §91-12; am L 1980, c 232, §4;
gen ch 1985]
Case Notes
Order of agency must conform to decision as reflected in
agency minutes. 52 H. 221, 473 P.2d 573.
Although each proposed finding by a party must be ruled upon,
a separate ruling on each proposed finding is not indispensable and the agency
may incorporate its findings and rulings in its decision. 54 H. 134, 504 P.2d
1214; 4 H. App. 633, 675 P.2d 784.
Section applies to decision of criminal injuries compensation
commission. 54 H. 294, 506 P.2d 444.
Agency must make its findings reasonably clear. 54 H. 663,
513 P.2d 1376.
A separate ruling on each proposed finding is not necessary.
57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292.
Findings merely summarizing testimony of witness do not
constitute findings of basic fact. 57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292.
Sufficiency of particularity of ruling on proposed findings.
57 H. 535, 560 P.2d 1292.
Agency's findings of ultimate facts must be supported by
findings of basic facts which must be supported by the evidence in the record.
60 H. 625, 594 P.2d 612.
Does not limit board's power to order union to implement
staffing of essential positions. 66 H. 461, 667 P.2d 783.
Where commissioner followed all relevant administrative
requirements in issuing cease and desist order, holding hearings, responding to
exceptions, and scheduling oral arguments, and there was no indication that
nine-month period between oral argument and the final order was caused by an
unjustified agency decision to postpone resolution of the matter,
commissioner's action in issuing final order nine months after oral argument
was not "characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted
exercise of discretion" or "made upon unlawful procedure". 112
H. 90, 144 P.3d 1.
Labor and industrial relations appeals board should generally
state whether or not it has applied presumption that claim is for a covered
work injury. But failure to do so in instant case did not prejudice
appellant's substantial rights. 1 H. App. 77, 613 P.2d 927.
Does not require notices of tax assessment be accompanied by
findings of fact and conclusions of law. 6 H. App. 260, 718 P.2d 1122.
Labor department's decision vacated where decision did not
comply with this section's requirement that decision be accompanied by separate
findings of fact and conclusions of law as decision did not decide whether
employee's stated reasons for quitting constituted good cause for terminating
employment. 81 H. 84 (App.), 912 P.2d 581.
Cited: 9 H. App. 240, 833 P.2d 93.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
43
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case:
Trivectra v. Ushijima, 144 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2006).
Trivectra v. Ushijima, 144 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 24× “contained therein violated the Appellants' statutory rights under HRS § 91-11 (1993); [2] (4) that the issuance of the final order sixteen months after the issuance of the original cease and desist order (CDO) and eleven months after the issuance of the hearings officer's…”
Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 12× “The only "other agency orders" referred to in HAPA are orders "rendered by an agency in a contested case" under HRS § 91-12. [4] Thus, reading HRS § 91-8 in pari materia with HRS § 91-12, declaratory rulings have the "same status" as contested case orders.”
In Re Kauai Elec. Div. of Citizens Utils. Co., 590 P.2d 524 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 16× “It lacks specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by HRS § 91-12; II. Whether order number 4084 is void because the ultimate conclusions reached by the Commission are unsupported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence; III.”
In re Contested Case Hearing re Conservation Dist. Use Application, 431 P.3d 752 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Every decision and order adverse to a party to the proceeding, rendered by an agency in a contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
In Re Hawaiian Tel. Co., 513 P.2d 1376 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 36× “HRS § 91-12 provides: § 91-12 Decisions and orders.”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 10× “ts from presenting arguments on all issues in violation of HRS § 91-9(a) and (c) (1976) and HRS § 91-10(3) (1976); (3) it rejected certain of appellants’proposed findings without a quorum of the commissioners being present in violation of HRS § 92-15 (1976); and (4) it failed to…”
Lanai Co., Inc. v. Land Use Com'n, 97 P.3d 372 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 4× “38 The LUC, in the 1991 Order, acknowledged that it had “heard and examined” the proposed findings and conclusions and thereby issued its findings, conclusions and decision and order accordingly.”
Survivors of Timothy Freitas v. PAC. CONTRACTORS, 613 P.2d 927 (Haw. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Appellants contend that the Board’s rejection of six of Employer’s proposed findings of fact was “clearly contrary” to section 91-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, because the Board did not specifically indicate why the proposed findings were *83 rejected.”
Rife v. Akiba, 912 P.2d 581 (Haw. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “We vacate and remand pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(l) because the Department failed to satisfy HRS § 91-12 (1993). THE APPLICABLE LAW Hawaii’s Employment Security Law states in HRS § 383-30 (1993) various disqualifications for benefits.”
Mitchell v. BWK Jt. Venture, 560 P.2d 1292 (Haw. 1977).
· cites it 6× “Appellants contend that the wholesale rejection of their proposed findings by the board is contrary to HRS § 91-12, which requires a ruling on each proposed finding, as follows: Decisions and orders.”
E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of Honolulu, 174 P.3d 367 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 91-12. Additionally, if the officials who are to render the final decision have not heard and examined all the evidence submitted, which commonly occurs when the officials are volunteer members of a state or county board or commission, no final decision can be made until a…”
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.