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

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-6 (2026)

  Petition for adoption, amendment or repeal of rules

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

     §91-6  Petition for adoption, amendment or repeal of rules.  Any interested person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule stating reasons therefor.  Each agency shall adopt rules prescribing the form for the petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition.  Upon submission of the petition, the agency shall within thirty days either deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial or initiate proceedings in accordance with section 91-3. [L 1961, c 103, §6; Supp, §6C-6; HRS §91-6]

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 10× “[6] Thus, it appears that the legislature's changes to the Revised Model Act in this respect was to make clear that "any interested person" can petition for (1) the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule under HRS § 91-6 and (2) a declaratory ruling pursuant to HRS § 91-8.”
Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago., 378 P.3d 944 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 8× “The court additionally held that Green Party had not prevailed on the merits of its claim because it failed to show impairment or denial of the right to vote and failed to establish irreparable injury warranting the issuance of a permanent injunction.”
Application of Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., 918 P.2d 561 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 4× “The court rejected the appellants’ arguments because: (1) the appellants: (a) accepted, without objection, the contested case procedure; (b) took their appeal based on statutes that provide for appeals from the “order” in a contested case; (c) should have proceeded by petition…”
AlohaCare v. Ito, 271 P.3d 621 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 4× “For example, an "interested person" may petition for the "repeal" of rules, HRS § 91-6, or obtain a judicial declaration on the "validity " of any agency rule, HRS § 91-7.”
Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 2× “Two provisions apply to agency rules: (1) under HRS § 91-6, an interested party may petition an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal an existing rule; and (2) under HRS § 91-7, such party may seek a judicial declaration as to the validity of an agency rule.”
Green Party of Hawaii v. Nago, 365 P.3d 987 (Haw. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “1-3 (2012); (2) concluding that the procedures used by a precinct to request additional ballots when the precinct runs out of ballots and receives additional ballots were not rales within the meaning of HRS § 91-1(4) and therefore were not required to be adopted pursuant to HRS…”
Card v. Zoning Bd. of Honolulu, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 2× “Two provisions apply to agency rules: (1) under HRS § 91-6, an interested party may petition an agency to adopt, amend, or repeal an existing rule; and (2) under HRS § 91-7, such party may seek a judicial declaration as to the validity of an agency rule.”
In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 669 P.2d 148 (Haw. 1983). “Moreover, if what appellants desired was the promulgation of a “rule” by the PUC, they should have proceeded by petition for the adoption of such rule pursuant to § 91-6, HRS. The agency then would have been obliged within 30 days to either deny the petition, stating its reasons…”
In re The Application Of The Gas Co., LLC dba Hawaii Gas For Approval Of Rate Increases & Revised Rate Schedules & Rules. (Haw. 2020). · cites it 2× “Moreover, if what appellants desired was the promulgation of a “rule” by the PUC, they should have proceeded by petition for the adoption of such rule pursuant to § 91-6, HRS. The agency then would have been obliged within 30 days to either deny the petition, stating its reasons…”
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.