§92-12 Enforcement. (a) The attorney
general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
(b) The circuit courts of the State shall have
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this part by injunction or other
appropriate remedy.
(c) Any person may commence a suit against a
board or alleged board in the circuit court of the circuit in which a
prohibited act occurs for the purpose of:
(1) Requiring compliance with or preventing
violations of this part;
(2) Determining the applicability of this part to
discussions or decisions of the public body; or
(3) Challenging an opinion or ruling of the office of
information practices concerning a complaint by that person.
The person may bring the action within two years of
a prohibited act; provided that a decision to appeal to the office of
information practices for review shall not prejudice the person's right to
appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of
information practices. If the person prevails, the court may order payment of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs by the board in a suit brought under this
section.
(d) In an action under this section, the
circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the
office of information practices shall be admissible in an action brought under
this part and shall be considered as precedent unless found to be palpably
erroneous; provided that in an action under this section challenging an opinion
or ruling of the office of information practices concerning a complaint by the
plaintiff, the circuit court shall hear the challenged adverse determination de
novo. Except as provided in section 92F-43, a board or alleged board shall not
challenge an opinion or ruling of the office of information practices about the
board or alleged board.
(e) When filing a suit that is under, related
to, or affected by this part, a person shall notify the office of information
practices in writing at the time of the filing. The office of information
practices may intervene in the action.
(f) Except as to cases the circuit court
considers of greater importance, proceedings before the court, as authorized by
this section, and appeals therefrom, shall take precedence on the docket over
all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the
earliest practicable date and expedited in every way when the suit seeks to
void any final action pursuant to section 92-11.
(g) The proceedings for review shall not stay
the enforcement of any agency decisions; provided that the reviewing court may
order a stay if the following criteria have been met:
(1) There is likelihood that the party bringing the
action will prevail on the merits;
(2) Irreparable damage will result if a stay is not
ordered;
(3) No irreparable damage to the public will result
from the stay order; and
(4) Public interest will be served by the stay order.
[L 1975, c 166, pt of §1; am L 1985, c 278, §5; am L 2012, c 176, §3; am L
2024, c 160, §2]
Law Journals and Reviews
2013 Law and Administrative Rules Governing Appeal Procedures
of Hawaii's Office of Information Practices. 36 UH L. Rev. 271 (2014).
Case Notes
Entitles "any person" to "commence a suit in
the circuit court of the circuit in which a prohibited act occurs",
regardless of the person's participation in any proceeding. 74 H. 365, 846
P.2d 882.
Award of attorneys' fees under subsection (c) intended to
apply where citizen prevails against government; prevailing defendant private
party thus not entitled to attorneys' fees under this subsection. 86 H. 132,
948 P.2d 122.
Plaintiffs, as a "private attorney general", had
standing pursuant to subsection (c) to present case to determine the
applicability of the sunshine law to defendants' conduct--where five or more
city council members participated in a series of private one-on-one
conversations regarding, among other matters, the proposed reorganization of
the council's standing committees--and to seek a declaration that it violated
the sunshine law. 117 H. 1 (App.), 175 P.3d 111.
Trial court did not err in hearing plaintiffs' suit as to the
allegations that defendants' conduct relating to a council resolution violated
the sunshine law where exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied to the case,
including the public interest exception when the question involved affects the
public interest and is likely that similar questions arising in the future
would likewise become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an
appellate court, and the exception when the case is capable of repetition, yet
evades review. 117 H. 1 (App.), 175 P.3d 111.
Where plaintiffs prevailed on some, but not all, of their
claims, but plaintiffs' claims for relief involved a common core of facts and
were based on related legal theories, and much of counsel's time was devoted
generally to litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours
expended on a claim-by-claim basis, trial court should not have reduced the
plaintiffs' attorney's fees request by seventy-five per cent; plaintiffs were
thus entitled to full attorney's fees pursuant to subsection (c). 117 H. 1
(App.), 175 P.3d 111.
As this chapter governs board meetings and board meeting
minutes, including those of executive sessions, and this section, by its plain
language, permits "any person", including the county, to bring suit
in circuit court "to determine the applicability of part I of this chapter
to the discussions or decisions" of the council, the circuit court did not
err in determining it had jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter to determine
whether county council's executive session minutes had to be disclosed. 120 H.
34 (App.), 200 P.3d 403.
Notes of Decisions
Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, 175 P.3d 111 (Haw. App. 2008).
· cites it 21× “Plaintiffs alleged in Count III that pursuant to HRS § 92-12 (1993), they were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
Kaapu v. Aloha Tower Dev. Corp., 846 P.2d 882 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 20× “Kaapu’s Standing to Challenge the ATDC’s Decision to Withhold Disclosure of Development Proposals Kaapu contends that the plain language of HRS § 92-12 (1985) of the Sunshine Law confers standing on him to challenge the validity of the confidentiality provisions of ATDC Rule…”
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Sunshine Law personnel privacy exception broadly applies to all discussion of personnel matters concerning the chief of police regardless whether "consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved" (Counts [3] and [4]…”
Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. Maui Cnty. Council, 948 P.2d 122 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 19× “ATTORNEYS’ FEES ARE NOT WARRANTED UNDER HRS § 92-12 The purpose of HRS Chapter 92, the Hawai‘i “sunshine law,” is to “[open] up the governmental processes to public.”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 12× “The legislature’s expansive view of standing under HRS § 92-12(e) is further *365 evidenced by the fact that “[t]he court may order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a suit brought under this section.”
Richard v. Metcalf, 921 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 10× “Although the injury in fact test does not apply to actions brought under HRS § 92-12, 10 and additional requirements must be met under HRS § 91-14, 11 this standard rule governing standing to sue applies to actions brought under HRS § 91-7.”
Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 143 P.3d 1205 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 4× “4 (1997) (explaining that attorney's fees would not be awarded because it would have a "chilling effect" and deter citizens from filing suits under HRS § 92-12(c) (1993) [1] ); FASA Corp. v.”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 92-12 (1993) constitutes the enforcement provision of the Sunshine Law and provides: (a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.”
Cnty. of Kauai v. OIP, 200 P.3d 403 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “Among other things, County alleged that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the complaint pursuant to HRS §§ 92-12 (1993), 92F-15 (1993), 603-21.”
Keahi v. Chang (Haw. App. 2026).
· cites it 12× “On appeal, Plaintiffs assert four points of error, contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) dismissing as moot Plaintiffs' "HRS § 92-12 challenge," which appears to be their shorthand for the determinations they seek regarding their Sunshine Law and illegal rulemaking…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(b) — 4 cases
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
“Whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Sunshine Law personnel privacy exception broadly applies to all discussion of personnel matters concerning the chief of police regardless whether "consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved" (Counts [3] and [4]…”
Cnty. of Kauai v. OIP, 200 P.3d 403 (Haw. App. 2009).
“Among other things, County alleged that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the complaint pursuant to HRS §§ 92-12 (1993), 92F-15 (1993), 603-21.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(c) — 11 cases
Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, 175 P.3d 111 (Haw. App. 2008).
“Plaintiffs alleged in Count III that pursuant to HRS § 92-12 (1993), they were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 143 P.3d 1205 (Haw. 2006).
“4 (1997) (explaining that attorney's fees would not be awarded because it would have a "chilling effect" and deter citizens from filing suits under HRS § 92-12(c) (1993) [1] ); FASA Corp. v.”
Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. Maui Cnty. Council, 948 P.2d 122 (Haw. 1997).
“ATTORNEYS’ FEES ARE NOT WARRANTED UNDER HRS § 92-12 The purpose of HRS Chapter 92, the Hawai‘i “sunshine law,” is to “[open] up the governmental processes to public.”
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
“Whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Sunshine Law personnel privacy exception broadly applies to all discussion of personnel matters concerning the chief of police regardless whether "consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved" (Counts [3] and [4]…”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014).
“The legislature’s expansive view of standing under HRS § 92-12(e) is further *365 evidenced by the fact that “[t]he court may order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a suit brought under this section.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(c)(2012) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(d) — 3 cases
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 445 P.3d 47 (Haw. 2019).
“Whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Sunshine Law personnel privacy exception broadly applies to all discussion of personnel matters concerning the chief of police regardless whether "consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved" (Counts [3] and [4]…”
Kanahele v. Maui Cnty. Council., 307 P.3d 1174 (Haw. 2013).
“HRS § 92-12 (1993) constitutes the enforcement provision of the Sunshine Law and provides: (a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-12(e) — 3 cases
Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, 175 P.3d 111 (Haw. App. 2008).
“Plaintiffs alleged in Count III that pursuant to HRS § 92-12 (1993), they were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. Maui Cnty. Council, 948 P.2d 122 (Haw. 1997).
“ATTORNEYS’ FEES ARE NOT WARRANTED UNDER HRS § 92-12 The purpose of HRS Chapter 92, the Hawai‘i “sunshine law,” is to “[open] up the governmental processes to public.”
Asato v. Procurement Policy Bd., State of Hawaii., 322 P.3d 228 (Haw. 2014).
“The legislature’s expansive view of standing under HRS § 92-12(e) is further *365 evidenced by the fact that “[t]he court may order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in a suit brought under this section.”
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.