§91-8 Declaratory rulings by agencies.
Any interested person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to the
applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the
agency. Each agency shall adopt rules prescribing the form of the petitions
and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and prompt disposition.
Orders disposing of petitions in such cases shall have the same status as other
agency orders. [L 1961, c 103, §8; Supp, §6C-8; HRS §91-8]
Law Journals and Reviews
PASH and the Evolution of Native Hawaiian Rights
Protection. 43 UH L. Rev. 550 (2021).
Case Notes
Hawaii public employment relations board was empowered to
make declaratory ruling regarding whether violation of collective bargaining
agreement is a prohibited practice. 60 H. 436, 591 P.2d 113.
Where an agency employee's only interest in obtaining a
declaratory ruling from that agency stems from his or her work as an agency
employee, that interest is insufficient to satisfy this section's standing
requirements; where executive director's interest in filing the petition
stemmed from the director's work as executive director, the Hawaii civil rights
commission did not have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order on the
petition. 104 H. 158, 86 P.3d 449.
Orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings under
this section are appealable to the circuit court pursuant to §91-14; thus,
circuit court had proper jurisdiction to review Hawaii labor relations board
order. 107 H. 178, 111 P.3d 587.
As both the title and the pertinent text make clear, the
declaratory ruling procedure of this section is meant to provide a means of
seeking a determination of whether and in what way some statute, agency rule,
or order, applies to the factual situation raised by an interested person; it
was not intended to allow review of concrete agency decisions for which other
means of review are available. 114 H. 184, 159 P.3d 143.
Where insurance commissioner's decision was appealable
pursuant to §91-14 because it was an order disposing of a petition brought
pursuant to this section, and plaintiff was a "person aggrieved" by
the commissioner's decision because it faced increased competition from
allegedly improperly licensed competitors in the managed care plan contract
process, and the decision held that plaintiff's competitors were in fact
properly licensed to offer the services required under those contracts, plaintiff
had standing to appeal the insurance commissioner's decision. 126 H. 326, 271
P.3d 621.
Out-of-state sex offender's pro se letter to state Attorney
General inquiring as to whether the offender's offense was a "covered
offense" that triggered a requirement to register if the offender
vacationed in Hawaii should have been liberally construed as a petition for a
declaratory ruling, notwithstanding that the offender mis-cited the appropriate
statutory provision, where offender's letter to the appropriate agency
unequivocally and timely sought to initiate administrative proceedings provided
for by statute. 135 H. 390, 351 P.3d 1156 (2015).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
57
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case:
AlohaCare v. Ito, 271 P.3d 621 (Haw. 2012).
AlohaCare v. Ito, 271 P.3d 621 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 358× “At the outset of the hearing, AlohaCare clarified that, although AlohaCare's petition for declaratory relief was brought pursuant to HRS § 91-8, its appeal of that ruling was brought pursuant to HRS § 91-14.”
Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 122× “Proceedings Before the HLRB While the arbitration proceedings were still in progress, the DOT, on October 20, 1997, submitted a petition to the HLRB for a declaratory ruling [hereinafter, petition] pursuant to HRS § 91-8 (1993) [6] and Hawai'i Administrative Rules (HAR) Rule…”
Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 41× “7 In its petition for a declaratory ruling, which CARD filed pursuant to HRS § 91-8 and DPP Rule § 3-1, 8 CARD stated, in the first paragraph of the letter, that it was “submit[ting] this petition for a declaratory ruling as to the applicability of certain provisions of the…”
In re: The Petition of Ku'ulei Higashi Kanahele & Ahiena Kanahele., 526 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2023).
· cites it 32× “2019), which only authorizes this court to directly review a final decision or order of contested cases under HRS chapter 205. In contrast, the Kanaheles argue that this court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to HRS §§ 205- 19(a), 91-8 (2012), and 91-14(b) (Supp.”
Card v. Zoning Bd. of Honolulu, 159 P.3d 143 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 41× “[7] In its petition for a declaratory ruling, which CARD filed pursuant to HRS § 91-8 and DPP Rule § 3-1, [8] CARD stated, in the first paragraph of the letter, that it was "submit[ting] this petition for a declaratory ruling as to the applicability of certain provisions of the…”
Lawson v. Attorney Gen.., 351 P.3d 1156 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 48× “In response, the Attorney General argued the circuit court appropriately dismissed Doe’s Notice because (1) the written communications between Doe and HCJDC did not constitute a contested case, (2) Doe’s letter was not a petition for termination, and (3) the letter did not…”
RGIS Inventory Specialist v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm'n, 86 P.3d 449 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 14× “The circuit court based its ruling on HRS § 91-8 (1993), 5 which provides that “[a]ny interested person” may ask an agency to issue a declaratory order, and on HRS § 91-1(2) (1993), which defines “persons” as “individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, or public or…”
Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., 194 P.3d 1126 (Haw. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “The LUC Proceedings Plaintiffs began their challenge of the Project by filing a petition for a declaratory ruling or order (Petition) with the LUC on February 27, 1997, pursuant to HRS § 91-8 (1993) [13] and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 15-15-98 (1986).”
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hawai'i Plan. Comm'n, 104 P.3d 930 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 8× “A hearing on the special permit application was held on October 20, 2000, during which Voicestream requested that the HCPC make a preliminary decision pursuant to HRS § 91-8 (1993) [4] as to whether a special permit was required before rendering a decision on the special permit…”
Fasi v. State of Hawaii Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 591 P.2d 113 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 8× “Each agency shall adopt rules prescribing the form of the petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and prompt disposition.”
Tamashiro v. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The provisions governing the establishment of adjudicatory procedures provide for, inter alia: (1) declaratory rulings by agencies, HRS § 91-8 (1993); (2) contested case hearings, HRS § 91-9 (1993 & Supp.”
In Re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The term does not include regulations concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights of or procedures available to the public, nor does the term include declaratory rulings issued pursuant to section 91-8, nor intra-agency memoranda.”
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.