§92-11 Voidability. Any final action
taken in violation of sections 92-3 and 92-7 may be voidable upon proof of
violation. A suit to void any final action shall be commenced within ninety
days of the action. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1; am L 2005, c 84, §2]
Case Notes
Respondent Maui county council's first reading of bills did
not constitute a "final action" that is subject to invalidation under
this section, as a second and final reading was required under the Maui county
charter for respondent to carry out its authority on the matter; "final
action" in the context of this section means "the final vote required
to carry out the board's authority on the matter". 130 H. 228, 307 P.3d
1174 (2013).
Violation not wilful. 4 H. App. 633, 675 P.2d 784.
Notes of Decisions
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 16× “" In addition to seeking declaratory relief and disclosure of the January 18 executive meeting minutes, Civil Beat sought an order "voiding [the Commission's] approval of the retirement agreement," pursuant to HRS § 92-11. 2. Dismissal of the Complaint On February 16, 2017, the…”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 26× “After concluding that the memoranda violated the Sunshine Law, the concurrence analyzed whether the violation should result in voiding the MCC’s actions pursuant to HRS § 92-11, which provides that “[a]ny final action taken in violation of sections 92-3 and 92-7 may be voidable…”
Bremner v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 28 P.3d 350 (Haw. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 92-11 (1993). Bremner does not complain that he was prevented from testifying at the November 13, 1996 council meeting.”
Singleton v. Liquor Comm'n, 140 P.3d 1014 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 2× “21, 31-32 (2003) (discussing enforcement of the Sunshine Law (quoting HRS § 92-11)). Nowhere in Appellant's opening brief does he provide proof or point to any evidence in the record that a "willful violation” occurred.”
In re Attorney's Fees to McLaren v. Paradise Inn Hawaii, Inc., 321 P.3d 671 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 4× “On July 19, 2010, McLaren requested access to any DCD documents related to the review and approval of his attorney’s fees request, pursuant to HRS §§ 92-11 3 and 92F-12. 4 On August 4, 2010, McLaren sent the DCD a letter stating that pursuant to Hawai'i Administrative Rules…”
Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Est., 675 P.2d 784 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “However, HRS § 92-11 (1976) provides that an agency decision made in violation of the Sunshine Law is voidable only “upon proof of wilful violation.”
Kaapu v. Aloha Tower Dev. Corp., 846 P.2d 882 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Thus, Kaapu cannot successfully nullify the ATDC’s selection of ATA as the developer of the complex pursuant to HRS § 92-11 (1985), which provides in relevant part that “[a]ny final action taken in violation of [HRS §1 92-3 .”
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.