§91-13 Consultation by officials of agency.
No official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case shall
consult any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for
all parties to participate, save to the extent required for the disposition of
ex parte matters authorized by law. [L 1961, c 103, §13; Supp, §6C-13; HRS
§91-13]
Attorney General Opinions
A division chief acting as
a hearings officer must comply with this section, and may not consult any
person in or outside of the division on any issue of fact, with the exception
of ex parte matters authorized by law. Att. Gen. Op. 98-6.
Case Notes
Where director's violation
of this section by consulting materials and individuals outside the record did
not prejudice appellant's substantial rights, harmless error. 87 H. 217, 953
P.2d 1315.
Notes of Decisions
'O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources, 382 P.3d 195 (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 8× “See HRS § 91-13 ("No official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case shall consult any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, save to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized…”
Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn, 200 P.3d 370 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Despite the fact that consideration of the outside sources violated HRS § 91-13 (1993), which states that “[n]o official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case shall consult any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to…”
The Cmty. Associations of Hualalai, Inc. v. Leeward Plan. Comm'n., 500 P.3d 426 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 91-13 similarly precludes an “official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case” from “consult[ing] any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, save to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte…”
Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan, 953 P.2d 1315 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” In his testimony before the ZBA, the Director acknowledged that his staff (1) had made a book concerning Buddhism available to him, which had not been made a part of the record, and (2) had consulted an unidentified “qualified individual” regarding the Buddhist belief system.”
Keep the North Shore Country v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources., 506 P.3d 150 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Additionally, HRS § 91-13 (2012) provides that “[n]o official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case shall consult any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, save to the extent required for the…”
Kilakila 'O Haleakala v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Resources. (Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 91-13 (“No official of an agency who renders a decision in a contested case shall consult any person on any issue of fact except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, save to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized…”
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.