Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14

Section 91-14(g) assigns review of agency conclusions of law to paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects to paragraph (3), findings of fact to paragraph (5), and agency discretion to paragraph (6).

Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Inc. · filed 2000-11-28(g)

“Under HRS § 91-14(g), [COLs] are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); [FOFs] are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6).”

Section 91-14(g) directs courts to review agency conclusions of law under paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), and findings of fact under paragraph (5).

Tamashiro v. Control Specialists, Inc. · filed 2001-04-24(g)

Hence, conclusions of law (CsOL) are reviewed under subsections (1), (2) and (4), and findings of fact (FsOF) are reviewed under subsection (5).

Section 91-14(g)(5) subjects agency fact findings to clearly erroneous review; a court sustains them unless firmly convinced a mistake occurred.

Wharton v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc. · filed 1995-11-15(g)(5)

The clearly erroneous standard requires this court to sustain the Board’s findings unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been-made.

Section 91-14(g) directs courts to review agency legal conclusions under paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects under (3), factual findings under (5), and exercises of discretion under (6).

In Re the Application of Puhi Sewer & Water Co. · filed 1996-09-27(g)

Under HRS § 91—14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of its discretion is reviewable under subsection (6).

Section 91-14(g) requires review of LIRAB factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.

Shipley v. Ala Moana Hotel · filed 1996-11-19(g)

The standards of review of decisions of the LIRAB are described in HRS § 91-14(g), which provides in relevant part: ... Accordingly, appeals taken from findings [of fact] set forth in decisions of the Board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g) subjects LIRAB findings of fact to clearly erroneous review and requires the court to sustain them unless firmly convinced a mistake was made.

Survivors of Iida v. Oriental Imports, Inc. · filed 1997-03-11(g)

HRS § 91—14(g) (1993) (emphasis added). Accordingly, appeals taken from findings [of fact] set forth in decisions of the Board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Under subsection (g), an agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo for correctness.

Mitchell v. State, Dept. of Educ. · filed 1997-07-08(g)

Appellate review of the Board’s decision is governed by HRS § 91—14(g). ... The only question properly before us is that of compensability for the February 5, 1990 injury, which is a question of law. We have stated that a “conclusion of law is not binding on an appellate court and is freely reviewable for its correctness. Thus, this court reviews conclusions of law de novo, under the right/wrong standard.”

Section 91-14(g) makes agency conclusions of law reviewable for legal error, and a legal question on secondary appeal is freely reviewable.

Estate of Cabral v. AIG Hawaii Insurance Co. · filed 1998-02-11(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6). ... The sole issue on appeal is a question of law that is freely reviewable by this court: Whether the Hawai'i motor vehicle insurance law, specifically HRS §§ 431:100-304 and 431:100-103(10), confers upon an insured a survivors’ loss benefit in an amount equal to the aggregate limits of no-fault benefits less any no-fault benefits paid or payable under the policy.

Section 91-14(g) requires an appellate court in a secondary appeal to apply its review standards to the agency’s decision and determine whether the reviewing court was right or wrong.

Doe v. Child Support Enforcement Agency · filed 1998-02-24(g)

In a secondary appeal, we apply the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency’s decision and determine whether the family court’s decision was right or wrong.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires agency findings of fact to be reviewed for clear error in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Board · filed 1998-03-31(g)(5)

An agency’s findings of fact are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Alvarez v. Liberty House, Inc., 85 Hawai'i 275, 277, 942 P.2d 539, 541 (1997); HRS § 91—14(g)(5).

Section 91-14(g) assigns review of agency conclusions of law to subsections (1), (2), and (4), findings of fact to subsection (5), and exercises of discretion to subsection (6).

Ostrowski v. Wasa Electrical Services, Inc. · filed 1998-06-04(g)

Conclusions of law are reviewed under subsections (1), (2), and (4) of HRS § 91-14(g); findings of fact are reviewed under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewed under subsection (6).

Section 91-14(g) governs review of agency decisions, and statutory interpretation receives de novo review.

Kim v. Contractors License Board · filed 1998-10-28(g)

This court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, pursuant to the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g). ... Appellants correctly point out that the proper standard of review is de novo.

On a secondary appeal from circuit court review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision while the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Commission · filed 1999-02-03(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency’s decision.

Section 91-14(g)(4) and (5) permits a court to vacate a Board decision for legal error or clearly erroneous findings.

Bocalbos v. Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children · filed 2000-03-09(g)(4) and (5)

We conclude denial of the recommended treatment was clearly erroneous and wrong under the standard set forth in HRS § 91—14(g)(4) and (5) and the Board’s amended decision and order must be vacated on that basis.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency’s decision on a secondary appeal from circuit court review.

Keanini v. Akiba · filed 2000-03-17(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency’s decision.

Section 91-14(g)(4) calls for de novo review of an agency conclusion of law.

Tamashiro v. Control Specialist, Inc. · filed 2001-11-07(g)(4)

Due to the ICA's erroneous application of the section 386-85(1) presumption, see supra, the ICA did not review the Board's conclusion of law that Tamashiro was not TTD from August 4, 1994 up to July 15, 1995 under the appropriate standard, i.e., de novo.

Section 91-14(g) governs appellate review of Board decisions, with the Board’s findings of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Davenport v. City & County of Honolulu · filed 2001-12-13(g)

Appellate review of a decision of the Board is governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (1993). ... Accordingly, it is well-established that appellate courts review the Board’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires clear error review of agency decisions involving mixed questions of fact and law.

Nakamura v. State · filed 2002-05-23(g)(5)

To the extent that the Board's decisions involve mixed questions of fact and law, they are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard "because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for clear error.

Ipsen v. Akiba · filed 1996-02-14(g)(5)

The reviewing court assesses the .agency’s findings of facts under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts reviewing an agency decision to review the agency’s findings of fact for clear error.

Keanini v. Akiba · filed 1997-03-12(g)(5)

Hence, the agency’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Agsalud, 65 Haw. 146, 148, 648 P.2d 1107, 1110 (1982); HRS § 91-14(g)(5) (1993).

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for clear error in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant · filed 2001-08-30(g)(5)

We have previously stated: [FOFs] are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Alvarez v. Liberty House, Inc., 85 Hawai`i 275, 277, 942 P.2d 539, 541 (1997); HRS § 91-14(g)(5).

On secondary appeal from circuit court review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards the appellate court applies to the agency decision.

Konno v. County of Hawai'i · filed 1997-05-13(g)

Due to the procedural history of No. 18236, we apply the following standard of review to this portion of our opinion: ... The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91—14(g) to the agency’s decision.

On secondary appeal from judicial review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) requires the appellate court to decide whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the subsection’s standards to the agency decision.

Poe v. Hawai'i Labor Relations Board · filed 2002-02-25(g)

[r]eview of a decision made by the circuit court upon its review of an agency’s decision is a secondary appeal. The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91—14(g) to the agency’s decision.

On a secondary appeal, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision when determining whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Director, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations v. Kiewit Pacific Co. · filed 2004-01-08(g)

Accordingly, in deciding “whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, [we apply] the standards set forth in [HRS § 91-14(g) ] to the agency’s decision.”

Section 91-14’s standards of review may be applied to noncontested agency appeals when the court otherwise has jurisdiction.

In Re Robert's Tours & Transportation, Inc. · filed 2004-02-19

In contrast, we see no reason why the standards of review for an agency decision should differ depending on whether the appeal arises from a contested or a noncontested ease—assuming that the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Therefore, we apply the standards of review articulated in HRS § 91-14 to the instant case.

Section 91-14(g) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for clear error on the whole record and conclusions of law freely for legal error.

Morgan v. Planning Department, County of Kauai · filed 2004-03-24(g)

[a]n agency’s findings of fact are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. An agency’s conclusions of law are freely reviewable to determine if the agency’s decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of agency, or affected by other error of law.

Section 91-14(g) subjects agency conclusions of law to review under the right/wrong standard for constitutional or statutory violations, excess of authority, and other errors of law.

In Re Water Use Permit Applications · filed 2004-06-21(g)

As such, the Water Commission's COLs are freely reviewable under the right/wrong standard "to determine if [its] decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of agency, or affected by other error of law."

Section 91-14(g) requires appellate review of Board factual findings for clear error in light of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Davenport v. City & County of Honolulu, Honolulu Fire Department · filed 2002-12-30(g)

Appellate review of Board decisions is governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (1993). Korsak v. Hawai`i Permanente Medical Group, 94 Hawai`i 297, 302, 12 P.3d 1238, 1243 (2000). The Board's findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in view of the "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." Id. at 302-03, 12 P.3d at 1243-44 (brackets and citation omitted).

Section 91-14(g) supplies general standards for reviewing agency decisions, but circuit court review of HCRC decisions is de novo under the more specific section 368-16(a).

State v. Hoshijo Ex Rel. White · filed 2003-09-12(g)

While both HRS §§ 368-16(a) and 91-14(g) are directed at agency decisions, HRS § 368-16(a) is concerned solely with the appropriate standard of review of a HCRC decision in the circuit court. Inasmuch as HRS § 368-16(a) is the more specific statute, the appropriate standard of review of the HCRC's decision in the circuit court is de novo review.

Section 91-14(g) governs judicial review of agency decisions; a court reviews the Board’s factual findings for clear error in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Cabatbat v. County of Hawai'i, Department of Water Supply · filed 2003-12-08(g)

We review agency decisions based on the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993). ... This court applies a clearly erroneous standard of review to the Board’s findings.

Section 91-14(g) calls for de novo review of agency conclusions of law under the right/wrong standard.

Duque v. Hilton Hawaiian Village · filed 2004-10-04(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewed d.e novo, under the right/wrong standard.

On a secondary appeal from judicial review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision to determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Medeiros v. LABOR AND INDUS. RELATIONS · filed 2005-09-01(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) [(1993)] to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) calls for reversal of clearly erroneous agency fact findings and free review of agency legal conclusions.

In Re Waikoloa Sanitary Sewer Co., Inc. · filed 2006-02-02(g)

Under HRS § 91—14(g), “a reviewing court will reverse an agency’s findings of fact if it concludes that such a finding is clearly erroneous.... On the other hand, the agency’s conclusions of law are freely renewable.”

On a secondary appeal from judicial review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision.

Leslie v. Board of Appeals · filed 2006-02-28(g)

To determine if the decision under review is right or wrong, we “apply the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency’s decision.”

On appeal from a circuit court’s review of an agency decision, questions of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers, Local 996 Ex Rel. Affected OTS Employees v. Department of Labor & Industrial Relation · filed 2006-04-18(g)(5)

Questions of fact are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

On a secondary appeal from an agency decision, the appellate court applies § 91-14(g) standards to the agency decision when deciding whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Hua v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System · filed 2006-09-08(g)

must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency’s decision.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings for clear error in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Tauese v. State, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations · filed 2006-11-21(g)(5)

“An agency’s findings are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

On review under § 91-14(g), an agency decision affecting public trust resources receives a presumption of validity only if the agency grounds it in reasonably clear findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In Re the Contested Case Hearing on Water Use, Well Construction, & Pump Installation Permit Applications, Filed by Wai' · filed 2004-01-29(g)

Moreover, "[t]he presumption is particularly significant where the applicant challenges a substantial decision within the agency's expertise as `clearly erroneous,' HRS § 91-14(g)(5), `arbitrary,"capricious,' or an `abuse of discretion,' HRS § 91-14(g)(6)." Id. However, the foregoing presumption of validity presupposes that the agency has grounded its decision in reasonably clear FOFs and COLs.

On a secondary appeal from circuit court review of an agency decision, the appellate court applies § 91-14(g)’s standards to the agency decision to determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Harker v. Shamoto · filed 2004-05-14(g)

In determining whether the circuit court’s decision was right or wrong, the appellate court must apply the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency’s decision.

On secondary appeal from circuit court review of an agency decision, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision while the appellate court decides whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. County of Hawai'i Planning Commission · filed 2005-01-11(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g)(6) requires courts to review an agency determination within its delegated discretion for abuse of discretion; the “unjust and unreasonable” formulation does not apply outside the public utility ratemaking context.

Paul's Electrical Service, Inc. v. Befitel · filed 2004-07-14(g)(6)

Thus, the "unjust and unreasonable" language represents one application of the more general abuse of discretion standard of review; this language does not and will not apply to discretionary decisions of administrative agencies outside of the PUC ratemaking context. Instead, the standard of review, as provided by HRS 91-14(g)(6), is abuse of discretion.

Under subsection (g), an agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 v. Hanneman · filed 2005-01-28(g)

“Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g), an agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”

Section 91-14(g)(6) requires a court to determine whether an agency acted within its delegated discretion before reviewing that action for abuse of discretion.

Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 · filed 2006-11-14(g)(6)

Thus, before we can determine whether an agency abused its discretion pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(6), we must determine whether the agency determination under review was the type of agency action within the boundaries of the agency’s delegated authority.

Section 91-14(g)(5) subjects agency findings of fact to clearly erroneous review and permits them to stand when reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supports them unless the reviewing court is firmly convinced of a mistake.

Morimoto v. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES · filed 2005-05-23(g)(5)

HRS § 91-14(g) sets forth the appropriate standards for reviewing agency decisions. ... In an appeal from a circuit court’s review of an administrative decision, “the clearly erroneous standard governs an agency’s findings of fact[.]”

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires review of agency findings of fact for clear error in light of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

In Re Kukui (Molokai), Inc. · filed 2007-12-26(g)(5)

[POFs] are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 91-14(g) assigns review of agency legal conclusions to paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects to (3), factual findings to (5), and exercises of discretion to (6).

Department of Human Services v. Hale · filed 2008-11-19(g)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g), "an agency's conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6)."

Section 91-14(g) governs review of LIRAB decisions; factual findings and mixed questions of fact and law receive clearly erroneous review.

Lui v. PURAL WATER SPECIALTY CO., INC. · filed 2009-07-20(g)

Appellate review of a LIRAB decision is governed by HRS § 91-14(g) (1993), which states that: ... We have previously stated: FOFs are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. ... A COL that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

Section 91-14(g)(6) gives deferential review to an agency determination only when the agency had discretion to make that determination.

Card v. ZONING BD. OF HONOLULU · filed 2007-05-31(g)(6)

Under HRS 91-14(g)(6), an administrative agency's discretionary determinations will not be disturbed unless "[a]rbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." However, only discretionary decisions of agencies receive this deferential level of review.

Section 91-14(g) governs a court’s review of an administrative agency decision.

In re Hawai'i Government Employees Ass'n, Local 152 · filed 2007-11-13(g)

When a court reviews the decision of an administrative agency, HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) governs.

On a secondary appeal from an agency decision, an appellate court applies the § 91-14(g) standards used by the circuit court, freely reviews legal conclusions, and reviews factual questions for clear error.

Jou v. Schmidt · filed 2008-04-30(g)

We must determine whether the Circuit Court was right or wrong in its decision, utilizing the same standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) as applied by the Circuit Court on our review of the agency’s decision. The courts may freely review an agency’s conclusions of law. Questions of fact are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

Section 91-14(g) calls for de novo review of legal conclusions under paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), and clear-error review of factual determinations under paragraph (5).

Save Diamond Head Waters LLC v. Hans Hedemann Surf, Inc. · filed 2008-12-19(g)

Thus, conclusions of law should be reviewed de novo under subsections (1), (2), and (4); and factual determinations should be reviewed for clear error under subsection (5).

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on secondary appeal, and the agency’s legal determinations receive no deference.

Hawaii Medical Service Ass'n v. Adams · filed 2009-05-21(g)

The standards as set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) are applied to the agency’s decision. ... We are not required to give any deference to the Panel’s legal determination that HRS § 432E-1.4(a) required HMSA to list the specifically excluded service in Chapter 6 rather than exclude the service by cross-references between Chapters 6 and 4.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for clear error and sustain them unless firmly convinced a mistake was made.

Everson v. State · filed 2010-03-25(g)(5)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(5), administrative findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which requires this court to sustain its findings “unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Section 91-14(g)(6) gives deferential review to agency determinations only when the agency has discretion to make them.

Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Board of Appeals · filed 2007-05-31(g)(6)

Under HRS 91-14(g)(6), an administrative agency’s discretionary determinations will not be disturbed unless “[arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” However, only discretionary decisions of agencies receive this deferential level of review.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires review of an agency’s factual findings for clear error in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Brescia v. North Shore Ohana · filed 2007-07-12(g)(5)

The standards as set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) are applied to the agency's decision. ... We conclude that the Commission's decision in enforcing the Developer's Setback as shown on the July 1, 1983 subdivision map is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record and, thus, was not clearly erroneous.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review administrative findings of fact for clear error and sustain them unless firmly convinced a mistake was made.

Peroutka v. Cronin · filed 2008-03-27(g)(5)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(5), administrative findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which requires this court to sustain its findings “unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Bumanglag v. Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd., 78 Hawai'i 275, 279, 892 P.2d 468, 472 (1995) (block format and citation omitted).

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency factual findings for clear error and uphold findings supported by substantial evidence unless firmly convinced a mistake was made.

Director, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations v. Si-Nor, Inc. · filed 2009-02-18(g)(5)

Factual determinations should be reviewed for clear error under subsection (5). ... As the HLRB's findings are supported by the substantial, credible evidence presented to it, we are not left with the firm and definite belief that a mistake has been made and thus must reinstate the decision to overturn the Director's citation and penalty.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency’s decision on secondary appeal, while the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Si-Nor, Inc. v. Director, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations · filed 2009-02-26(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency’s decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to an agency decision on a secondary appeal.

HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASS'N v. Adams · filed 2009-05-22(g)

The standards as set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) are applied to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) requires an appellate court on secondary appeal to apply its review standards to the agency decision when determining whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Pleus v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals for City and County of Honolulu · filed 2010-05-28(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency's decision.

On secondary appeal, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing the agency’s decision.

Director, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations v. Permasteelisa Cladding Technologies, Ltd. · filed 2011-05-31(g)

The standards as set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) are applied to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards an appellate court applies directly to an agency decision in a secondary appeal.

Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Commission · filed 2013-04-30(g)

To determine if the circuit court’s decision is right or wrong, we “apply the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) to the agency’s decision.”

Section 91-14(g) provides de novo review for agency conclusions of law, review of procedural defects under paragraph (3), clearly erroneous review of findings of fact under paragraph (5), and arbitrary and capricious review of agency discretion under paragraph (6).

Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Commission of the County of Kauai. · filed 2014-02-28(g)

Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to subsections (1), (2) and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact (FOF) are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard, pursuant to subsection (5), and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, pursuant to subsection (6).

Section 91-14(g) assigns review of legal conclusions to subsections (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects to (3), factual findings to (5), and agency discretion to (6).

District Council 50 of the International Union of Painters & Allied Trades v. Lopez. · filed 2013-04-17(g)

“[U]nder HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion under subsection (6).”

Section 91-14(g) requires courts to review whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority or jurisdiction as a question of law, without deference to the agency.

In re United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646 · filed 2013-10-30(g)

However, we reject UPW’s argument that the issue of the HLRB’s jurisdiction is subject to the “palpably erroneous,” clearly erroneous, or other deferential standard of review.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires review of agency findings of fact and mixed questions of law and fact under the clearly erroneous standard.

Pila‘a 400, LLC v. Board of Land and Natural Resources. · filed 2014-02-14(g)(5)

HRS § 91-14(g)(5) sets out a “clearly erroneous” standard for judicial review of administrative findings of fact and mixed questions of fact and law.

Section 91-14(g) subjects agency findings of fact to clearly erroneous review in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Panoke v. Reef Development of Hawaii, Inc. · filed 2015-12-14(g)

[Findings of Fact] are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Under subsection (g), a court reviews an agency’s conclusions of law de novo.

Kilakila 'O Haleakala v. Board of Land and Natural Resources. · filed 2016-10-06(g)

“Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g), an agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”

Section 91-14(g) requires courts to review agency factual findings for clear error in light of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Diamond v. Dobbin. · filed 2014-01-27(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g), findings of fact are reviewable as to whether an agency’s decision is clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts reviewing administrative fact findings to sustain them unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made.

Boyd v. Hawai'i State Ethics Commission · filed 2015-08-19(g)(5)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(5), ... administrative findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which requires [the appellate] court to sustain its findings unless the court is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires review of agency fact findings for clear error in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record.

Surfrider Foundation v. Zoning Board of Appeal, City and County of Honolulu. · filed 2015-09-23(g)(5)

Under HRS § 91-14(g)(5) (1993), findings of fact are reviewed to determine whether they are “[e]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence—i.e., credible evidence of a sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion—to support the finding.

On a secondary appeal, § 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing the agency decision; the circuit court’s decision is reviewed de novo.

Panado v. Board of Trustees Employees' Retirement System State of Hawaii . · filed 2014-07-11(g)

As the circuit court was acting as an appellate court to the Board of Trustees’ decision, the ICA could only apply the HRS § 91-14(g) standards to the Board of Trustees’ decision in order to determine de novo whether the circuit court’s decision was incorrect.

On a secondary appeal from judicial review of an agency decision, the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying § 91-14(g)’s standards to the agency decision.

The Sierra Club v. D.R. Horton-Schuler Homes, LLC. · filed 2015-12-22(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91- 14(g) . . . to the agency’s decision.

Under § 91-14(g)(6), a court reviewing an agency decision for abuse of discretion first determines whether the decision falls within the agency’s delegated authority.

Kolio v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority. · filed 2015-05-06(g)(6)

When determining whether an agency abused its discretion pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(6), the court must first “determine whether the agency determination under review was the type of agency action within the boundaries of the agency’s delegated authority.”

Section 91-14(g) calls for clearly erroneous review of an agency determination presenting a mixed question of law and fact.

In re Kuamoo · filed 2016-08-18(g)

Appellants argue in their opening brief that this court should review the Board’s determination that the promotion process was "fair and impartial” for abuse of discretion standard, pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(6). However, we note that because the Board’s determination presented a mixed question of law and fact, we review the alleged error under a clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g)(6) limits reversal of an agency’s discretionary discovery ruling to an arbitrary, capricious, or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

'O Haleakalâ v. Board of Land & Natural Resources · filed 2016-10-06(g)(6)

Despite these concerns, we cannot say that BLNR abused its discretion when it denied Kilakila’s requests. “[A] determination made by an administrative agency acting within the boundaries of its delegated authority will not be overturned unless ‘arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by ... [a] clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.’”

Section 91-14(g) governs direct review of PUC decisions: legal conclusions receive de novo review, procedural defects are reviewed under subsection (3), factual findings for clear error, and agency discretion for arbitrariness or capriciousness.

In re: The Application of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. · filed 2021-06-29(g)

“Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to subsections (1), (2) and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); findings of fact (FOF) are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard, pursuant to subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, pursuant to subsection (6).”

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on a secondary appeal, in which the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

In re: Hawaii Fire Fighters Association and Blangiardi · filed 2021-08-31(g)

Our review of a circuit court decision on an appeal from an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (2012 and Supp. 2019) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) assigns review of agency legal conclusions to subsections (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects to subsection (3), factual findings to subsection (5), and discretionary decisions to subsection (6).

Keep the North Shore Country v. Board of Land and Natural Resources. · filed 2022-02-22(g)

“[U]nder HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion under subsection (6).”

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on a secondary appeal from the family court.

PM v. Child Support Enforcement Agency · filed 2022-03-31(g)

Our review of a family court decision on an appeal from an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the family court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g)8 to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits reversal or modification of an agency finding of a continuing violation when reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences, does not support it.

Dao v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals · filed 2019-01-31(g)(5)

Nevertheless, if an agency's factual determination that a violation occurred and is continuing is not grounded in reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, including any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, then the agency's decision may be determined to be clearly erroneous and therefore unjust and unreasonable in its consequences, warranting reversal or modification.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts reviewing agency fact findings for clear error to assess the agency record without reweighing the evidence or making their own findings.

Spar Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. State · filed 2019-02-22(g)(5)

The Circuit Court should have reviewed the evidence presented to the hearings officer not to make its own findings or conclusions, but to determine whether the Agency Decision was clearly erroneous.

Under § 91-14(g)(5), agency findings supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence are upheld unless the reviewing court has a firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made.

Allen v. Hoshijo · filed 2021-03-09(g)(5)

Based on the entirety of the evidence in the record in this case, although there was some conflicting evidence, we conclude the Circuit Court correctly determined that ESARO's factual findings, including that Allen voluntarily quit his employment, were supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence; we are not left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits reversal of an agency finding of fact only when it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Chun v. Board of Land and Natural Resources · filed 2022-08-11(g)(5)

On appeal to this court, an agency’s finding of fact will be reversed only where the finding of fact is “[c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” HRS § 91-14(g); see Flores, 143 Hawai‘i at 121, 424 P.3d at 476.

When an appeal challenges whether an agency had authority to act, § 91-14(g)(2) calls for review of whether the agency exceeded its statutory authority.

Botelho v. Atlas Recycling Center, LLC. · filed 2020-05-04(g)(2)

Because the issue before the ICA was whether HRS § 386-94 authorized LIRAB to amend or set attorneys’ requested hourly rates, the proper standard of review under HRS § 91-14(g) was whether LIRAB acted in excess of its statutory authority.

Section 91-14(g) requires de novo review of an agency’s conclusions of law.

Survivors of Amos K. Agliam v. C & F Trucking · filed 2021-05-18(g)

An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2019).

Section 91-14(g) governs judicial review of a direct appeal from a Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board decision.

Oka v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2022-01-14(g)

A direct appeal from a Board decision is reviewed according to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(g) (2012 and Supp. 2019).

Section 91-14(g) requires an appellate court reviewing a circuit court’s agency appeal decision to determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the statutory standards to the agency’s decision.

City and County of Honolulu v. Honolulu Police Commission. · filed 2022-03-16(g)

Our review of a circuit court decision on an appeal from an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91–14(g) (Supp. 2019) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) requires a court on secondary appeal to decide whether the circuit court correctly applied the statutory review standards to the agency decision.

Nishi v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations · filed 2022-06-16(g)

Our review of a circuit court decision on an appeal from an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91–14(g) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to an agency decision when an appellate court reviews a circuit court judgment in an administrative appeal.

In re: Hawaii State Teachers Association and Board of Education · filed 2022-08-18(g)

Our review of a circuit court decision on appeal from an administrative agency determination is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91–14(g) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on a secondary appeal, under which the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

In re: Fujimori v. Department of Human Services. · filed 2022-08-31(g)

This court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) § 91-14(g) (2012) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on appeal from the circuit court.

Protect and Preserve Kahoma Ahupua'a Association v. Maui Planning Commission · filed 2020-09-14(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g)(6) permits relief when an agency decision affecting substantial rights is arbitrary, capricious, or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

CH v. Child Support Enforcement Agency. · filed 2021-06-15(g)(6)

Absent proper consideration of these factors, as well as the other legal standards addressed above, the Hearing Officer's imputation of income to Father was arbitrary and capricious, and a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion affecting Father's substantial rights. See HRS § 91-14(g)(6).

Section 91-14(g)(5) directs courts to review a board’s factual findings for clear error in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Cabico v. Liberty Dialysis – Hawaii, LLC · filed 2022-02-23(g)(5)

Appeals taken from findings of fact set forth in decisions of the Board are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Thus, this court considers whether such a finding is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 91-14(g) requires appellate courts to review LIRAB findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo for correctness.

Scarlett v. Macy's West Stores, Inc. · filed 2023-07-31(g)

Appellate review of a LIRAB decision is governed by HRS § 91-14(g). It is well-established that appellate courts review LIRAB's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. However, LIRAB's conclusions of law cannot bind an appellate court and are freely reviewable for their correctness. Thus, the court reviews conclusions of law de novo, under the right/wrong standard.

Section 91-14(g)(4) provides review of agency errors of law, and subsection (g)(6) provides review of an agency’s exercise of discretion.

Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations · filed 2024-04-25(g)(4), (6)

Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsection (4), and an agency's exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6).

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.

Pave v. Production Processing, Inc · filed 2022-12-22(g)(5)

Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g)(5) calls for review of agency findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.

Bimbo v. Pua Lani Landscaping Design, Inc. · filed 2023-04-24(g)(5)

Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14(g)(4) calls for de novo review when an agency decides whether attorney fees or costs are authorized by statute.

In re: The Petition of Arden Delos Santos, as Personal Representative of the Estate of ADS v. Ito · filed 2023-02-24(g)(4)

We agree with Delos Santos to the extent that the Circuit Court was reviewing questions of law as to whether the Commissioner could award the attorney's fees and expert fees in question, and thus, should have applied the de novo standard of review.

Under § 91-14(g), a court reviews an agency’s conclusions of law de novo, including its interpretation of another statute.

In re: Petition of Avilla, Villanueva, and Biddinger v. Ito · filed 2023-03-16(g)

Thus, the Commissioner interpreted and applied HRS § 432E-6(e), and drew conclusions of law, for which a de novo, right/wrong standard of review applies.

Section 91-14(g) requires de novo review of an agency’s conclusions of law under the right/wrong standard.

Agasiva v. Realty Laua, LLC · filed 2023-04-14(g)

As to conclusions of law, the [Board]'s conclusions will be reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard.

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for clear error.

Berkoff v. IQ Design LLC · filed 2023-04-28(g)(5)

Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. HRS § 91-14(g)(5); Del Monte Fresh Produce (Haw.), Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 128 Hawai#i 289, 302, 287 P.3d 190, 203 (2012).

In a § 91-14 secondary appeal, the appellate court applies subsection (g) to the agency decision and determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong in affirming or vacating it.

Ward v. City & County of Honolulu Building Board of Appeals · filed 2024-08-13(g)

In an HRS § 91-14 secondary appeal, we review the agency's findings and conclusions to determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in affirming or vacating the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g) assigns agency conclusions of law to paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), procedural defects to paragraph (3), factual findings to paragraph (5), and exercises of discretion to paragraph (6) for judicial review.

Rosehill v. State of Hawai'i. · filed 2024-09-24(g)

“Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion under subsection (6).”

On a secondary appeal from a family court decision reviewing an agency support order, the appellate court applies § 91-14(g) standards to the agency decision and asks whether the family court was right or wrong.

I.S. v. Child Support Enforcement Agency · filed 2024-11-13(g)

Our review of the family court's decision on Mother's appeal from the Support Order is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the family court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards in HRS § 91–14(g) to the OCSH decision.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards an appellate court applies to the agency decision when reviewing a circuit court decision in a secondary appeal.

Tacub, Jr. v. Hawaiian Homes Commission · filed 2024-09-27(g)

"The appellate court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision by applying the standards set forth in [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 91-14(g) [(Supp. 2016)] to the agency's ... decision."

Section 91-14(g)(5) does not make an agency finding clearly erroneous when documents in the record support it.

Wang v. State · filed 2024-05-24(g)(5)

Documents in the record supported this finding. Thus, this finding was not clearly erroneous.

Section 91-14(g)(6) requires an agency to explain how it used evidence to reach its decision so a court can review whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Surface Water Use Permit Applications, Integration of Appurtenant Rights and Amendments to the Interim Instream Flow Sta · filed 2024-06-20(g)(6)

To the extent the Commission used statements from the substitution hearing and the settlement agreement as evidence, it must provide some reasons as to how it used that evidence to determine Mahi Pono’s water allocation.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights when it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Okuda v. Employment Security Appeals Referees' Office · filed 2025-03-24(g)(5)

Under HRS § 91-14(g)(5) (2012 & 2016 Supp.), a court may reverse an agency's decision that prejudices substantial rights and is "[c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record[.]"

Section 91-14(g) calls for de novo review of an agency’s conclusions of law and clear-error review of its factual findings.

Bell v. Hawai'i Public Housing Authority. · filed 2025-04-08(g)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g), an agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984), while an agency’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, HRS § 91-14(g)(5).

Section 91-14(g) calls for de novo review of agency legal conclusions and clear-error review of agency factual findings.

Martell v. Employee Retirement System · filed 2025-10-29(g)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2024),2 an agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, while under HRS § 91-14(g)(5), an agency's factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

Section 91-14(g) applies clearly erroneous review to agency findings of fact and right/wrong review to conclusions of law.

Lane v. Avis Budget Group, Inc · filed 2025-12-30(g)

In her points of error, Lane appears to argue that the ICA applied the incorrect standard of review; however, Lane does not present any argument to support this assertion and, further, the ICA correctly applied the clearly erroneous standard of review to the LIRAB’s FOFs and right/wrong standard to the LIRAB’s COLs.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standard for judicial review of an agency decision on secondary appeal, with mixed issues of fact and law reviewed for clear error.

Gomes, Jr. v. Employees' Retirement System · filed 2026-02-26(g)

We apply the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) (2012 & Supp. 2016) to determine whether the Circuit Court's decision was right or wrong. ... This conclusion presents mixed issues of fact and law and, as such, is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 91-14 places primary review of an agency decision in the Environmental Court; an appellate court reviewing that court’s decision conducts a secondary appeal and remands for primary merits review.

Sierra Club v. Board of Land and Natural Resources · filed 2024-12-24(b), (g)

Sierra Club next asks this court to address the merits of its appeal rather than remand this case to the Environmental Court for that purpose. We will not do so. Our review of a decision made by the Environmental Court upon its review of BLNR's decision is a secondary appeal. Primary review is by the Environmental Court. See HRS § 91-14(b),(g); Hamilton, 119 Hawai#i at 2, 193 P.3d at 840.

Section 91-14(b) permits an interested person to seek intervention in a circuit court agency appeal but does not require intervention in an earlier appeal to preserve later review.

West Sunset 32 Phase 1, LLC v. County of Kaua'i Planning Commission · filed 2025-03-11(b)

Somers further declined to seek intervention in the First Agency Appeal pursuant to HRS § 91-14(b). Although there was no requirement for him to take either action, these were alternative avenues available to him.

On a secondary appeal, section 91-14(g) requires the appellate court to decide whether the circuit court correctly applied the statutory review standards to the agency’s decision.

In re: Asato v. Hawaii Government Employees Association · filed 2025-02-14(g)

The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) [1993] to the agency's decision.

Under § 91-14(g), an appellate court reviewing an administrative decision applies the circuit court’s standard of review to decide whether the circuit court was right or wrong.

Loyola v. County of Hawai'i · filed 2025-06-27(g)

On secondary review of an administrative decision, we apply the same standard of review as the Circuit Court to determine whether the Circuit Court was right or wrong in its decision under HRS § 91-14(g).

Section 91-14(g)(6) provides abuse-of-discretion review of an agency decision made under a discretionary administrative rule.

Doherty v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Employment Security Appeals Referees' Office · filed 2025-07-23(g)(6)

We review ESARO's decision for abuse of discretion under HRS § 91-14(g)(6).

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on secondary appeal; the appellate court determines whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying those standards to the agency decision.

Kading v. Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals · filed 2026-02-13(g)

Our review of a circuit court's decision on an HRS § 91-14 agency appeal is a secondary appeal, in which we determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the standards of HRS § 91–14(g) to the BVA's decision and order.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards for reviewing an agency decision on secondary appeal, based on the record before the agency.

Yang v. Fink · filed 2026-05-12(g)

But in a secondary appeal under HRS § 91-15, we apply the standards of HRS § 91–14(g) (Supp. 2023) to the agency's decision, based on the record before the agency — the certified record on appeal transmitted by the agency to the circuit court under HRS § 91- 14(d).

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards applied to the agency decision on a secondary appeal from a circuit court ruling.

Baskin v. Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals · filed 2025-04-01(g)

Our review of the circuit court's decision on an HRS § 91-14 agency appeal is a secondary appeal, in which we decide whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the standards of HRS § 91–14(g) to the BVA's decision and order.

Section 91-14(g) supplies the standards a secondary appellate court applies to the agency decision when reviewing a circuit court ruling on an agency appeal.

Ford v. Board of Appeals · filed 2026-03-30(g)

Our review of a circuit court decision on an appeal from an administrative agency decision is a secondary appeal; we must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the standards of HRS § 91–14(g) to the agency's decision.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits reversal of an agency’s mixed fact and law determinations when they are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Mathern v. Edward D. Jones & Company · filed 2026-01-28(g)(5)

Mathern has not shown that these mixed determinations of fact and law, which the Director adopted, were "[c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record[.]"4/ HRS § 91-14(g)(5) (2012 & Supp. 2019).

Section 91-14(g)(5) requires affirmance of an agency’s factual findings in a declaratory order unless they are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State. · filed 2025-08-28(g)(5)

As relevant here, HRS § 91-14(g) provides the LUC’s findings of fact in a declaratory order will be affirmed unless they are “[c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

Section 91-14(g) provides different standards of review for agency conclusions of law, procedural defects, and findings of fact.

Douglas Engineering Pacific, Inc. v. Building Board of Appeals of the City and County of Honolulu · filed 2025-11-21(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g), we review COLs under subsections (1) and (4), questions regarding procedural defects under ... subsection (3), and FOFs under subsection (5).

Section 91-14(g) governs a court’s review of an administrative agency decision.

Hoopai v. Civil Service Commission · filed 2004-12-21(g)

When a court reviews the decision of an administrative agency, HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) ... governs.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision when its finding is clearly erroneous because the record lacks substantial evidence to support it.

Pulawa v. Oahu Construction, Co., Ltd. · filed 2015-11-04(g)(5)

Viewed under the reasonably needed standard as properly applied, LIRAB clearly erred because “the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding” that the neuromonics device was not reasonably needed for Pulawa’s greatest possible medical rehabilitation.

Section 91-14(g)(6) requires reversal of a contested-case decision imposing higher rents on tenants based on invalid income-limit rules because the decision is arbitrary.

Aguiar v. Hawaii Housing Authority · filed 1974-05-28(g)(6)

Since, as we hold infra, the HHA may not assert rent increases without affording the plaintiffs a prior adjudicatory hearing under the HAPA, we would be required by HRS § 91-14(g) (6) (Supp. 1973) eventually to strike down any differentiation of the plaintiffs from other tenants based on invalid income limits. That section requires judicial reversal of an agency decision in a contested case if it is “[ajrbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” Requiring the plaintiffs to pay greater rents than other public housing tenants would fall within the proscriptions of that section if predicated on invalid rules and hence on grounds which are by definition inadequate and arbitrary.

Section 91-14(a) permits reversal of an agency decision for a procedural violation only when the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

Chang v. PLANNING COM'N OF COUNTY OF MAUI · filed 1982-04-15(a)

Once again we turn to HRS § 91-14(a), ... describing the scope of this appeal, and find that appellant has failed to allege or otherwise establish that his substantial rights may have been prejudiced by the commission’s closure of its deliberations.

Section 91-14(g) prevents reversal or modification of an administrative decision for an error of law unless the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced.

Survivors of Wallace Medeiros v. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. · filed 1983-03-09(g)

The same deference must be afforded an administrative decision in light of HRS § 91-14(g) of the Administrative Procedures Act which precludes judicial reversal or modification of an administrative decision even where affected by error of law, as in this case, unless substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced.

Section 91-14(g)(4) allows courts to reverse an agency decision affected by an error of law.

Camara v. Agsalud · filed 1984-06-19(g)(4)

We now hold that the circuit courts as well as this court are free to reverse the agency’s decision if affected by an error of law. HRS § 91-14(g)(4).

Section 91-14(g)(4) requires a reviewing court to correct an agency decision affected by an error of law when the issue is statutory interpretation.

In Re Claim of Maldonado · filed 1984-09-05(g)(4)

While we do give deference to agency rulings, particularly when policy matters, and the construction of regulations are involved, we are here dealing with a pure question of statutory interpretation. In reviewing this case, HRS § 91-14(g)(4) is applicable. The Insurance Commissioner's decision is contrary to the clear language and framework of the no-fault statute. Her decision is therefore affected by an error of law, and it is our duty to correct that error.

Section 91-14(g) does not warrant reversal for procedural irregularities that do not prejudice a party’s substantial rights.

Application of Wind Power Pac. Investors-Iii · filed 1984-08-29(g)

While the PUC may not have followed procedural requirements to the letter, we hold that the irregularities complained of do not prejudice the substantial rights of Helco.

Section 91-14(g)(3) allows reversal or modification of an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure.

Application of Hawaiian Telephone Co. · filed 1984-09-27(g)(3)

Section 91-14(g)(3), however, expressly provides that an administrative decision and order is subject to reversal or modification if “[m]ade upon unlawful procedure.” Since the claim of error here concerns the procedure employed in approving revised rate schedules for utility services, our task is to consider the challenged action in the light of pertinent procedural mandates.

Section 91-14(g)(3) allows reversal or modification of a contested-case administrative decision made upon unlawful procedure.

Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc. · filed 1984-10-31(g)(3)

Review of an administrative decision and order in contested case is governed by HRS § 91-14. HRS § 91-14(g)(3) expressly provides that an administrative decision and order is subject to reversal or modification if made upon unlawful procedure.

Section 91-14(g)(3) requires reversal of an agency decision based on unlawful procedure.

In re Hawaiian Electric Co. · filed 1985-03-13(g)(3)

Thus, we review the PUC’s decision under HRS § 91-14(g)(3) (1976), which requires reversal if the decision is based on unlawful procedure.

Section 91-14(g)(6) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency order when an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion may have prejudiced a party’s substantial rights.

Ariyoshi v. Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board · filed 1985-05-06(g)(6)

Under HRS § 91-14(g)(6) (1976), a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency order if a party’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the order is “characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” Based on the facts in this case, we hold that HPERB’s order mandating a re-ratification election was an abuse of discretion.

Section 91-14(g) allows remand when incomplete agency findings leave no basis for judicial review.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Telephone Co. · filed 1986-01-28(g)

A remand pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g) is appropriate if an agency’s findings are incomplete and provide no basis for review.

Section 91-14(g) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for an error only when the petitioner’s substantial rights may have been prejudiced; harmless error does not warrant relief.

Mahiai v. Suwa · filed 1987-09-09(g)

We are constrained to reverse or modify an agency’s decision only where “substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced.” HRS § 91-14(g) (1985). We find that the error, if any, was harmless in this case.

Section 91-14(g)(1) permits vacatur and remand when an agency decision fails to satisfy the statutory requirement for findings and conclusions under § 91-12.

Rife v. Akiba · filed 1996-02-28(g)(1)

We vacate and remand pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g)(l) because the Department failed to satisfy HRS § 91-12 (1993).

Section 91-14(g)(2) permits a reviewing court to modify an agency order that prejudices substantial rights because the order exceeds the agency’s authority or jurisdiction.

Windward Marine Resort, Inc. v. Sullivan · filed 1997-10-27(g)(2)

HRS § 91-14(g) provides, in part: ... (g) Upon review of the record the [circuit] court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are: ... (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency[.] ... As we have pointed out, the issuance of cease and desist orders was in excess of the ZBA’s legal authority as conferred on it by Revised Charter § 6-909.

Section 91-14(g) requires affirmance of an agency decision despite a procedural violation when the violation did not prejudice the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan · filed 1998-04-09(g)

In conducting such review, this court must often employ a type of harmless error analysis to violations of HAPA. Thus, if the Director’s consultation of evidence outside the record did not affect the Temple’s substantial rights, his decision must be affirmed despite the technical HAPA violation.

Section 91-14(g) does not authorize a reviewing court to award damages for costs incurred in an administrative appeal.

Muñoz v. Chandler · filed 2002-02-21(g)

Pursuant to the above language, there is no authority vested in the hearing officer, the circuit court, or this court to award damages to the Muñozes for costs they incurred as a result of DHS’s request to be repaid the amount the Muñozes had been overpaid in AFDC benefits.

Section 91-14(g) requires prejudice to a petitioner’s substantial rights before an agency decision may be reversed or modified; alleged vagueness did not establish prejudice where the petitioner had been unaware of the rule and had also violated independent inspection requirements.

Paul v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP., STATE · filed 2007-09-24(g)

In any event, Paul fails to establish any prejudice to her substantial rights as required by HRS § 91-14(g), see emphasized language supra note 3; see also discussion supra this section.

Section 91-14(g) requires prejudice to a petitioner’s substantial rights before an agency decision may be reversed or modified for legal error.

Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 · filed 2012-10-22(g)

Accordingly, Del Monte’s “substantial rights” were not prejudiced by the Board’s decision.

Section 91-14(g)(5) permits a court to vacate and remand an agency approval when a material condition is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

Department of Environmental Services v. Land Use Commission · filed 2012-05-04(g)(5)

Having held that Condition 14 cannot stand because it is inconsistent with the evidence shown in the record and not supported by substantial evidence, the LUC’s approval of SUP-2 also cannot stand because Condition 14 was a material condition to the LUC’s approval. Consequently, this matter must be remanded to the LUC for further hearings as the LUC deems appropriate.

Section 91-14(g) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when an error may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights; an error that causes no such prejudice is harmless.

Baker v. Galuteria · filed 2018-01-29(g)

HRS § 91-14(g) provides that the court "may reverse or modify the decision and order [of the agency] if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced[.]" ... Baker has not shown that his substantial rights have been prejudiced. The Board denied the Galuterias' Motion to Dismiss and Baker was given a full hearing before the Board. Baker has not shown that the summary judgment proceedings affected his ability to fully present evidence and arguments at the Hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board's error was harmless.

Section 91-14(g) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision for legal or factual error when the error may have prejudiced the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Haw. State Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2019-01-30(g)

HSTA does not indicate what evidence it did not have the opportunity to produce, or how its "substantial rights" may have been prejudiced. See HRS § 91-14(g) (provided that the "court may ... reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced" by legal or factual errors by the administrative agency).

Section 91-14(a) allows a person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested agency case to appeal if the person participated in that case.

In re The Application Of The Gas Company, LLC dba Hawaii Gas For Approval Of Rate Increases And Revised Rate Schedules A · filed 2020-06-09(a)

Therefore, we apply the well-established two-prong standing test, most recently re-affirmed in HELCO, for intervenors or participants who are appealing final decisions and orders of the PUC.

Section 91-14(g) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision for an error only if the error may have prejudiced the petitioner's substantial rights.

Garcia v. Fernandez · filed 2020-06-04(g)

Therefore, Ms. Fernandez's substantial rights were not prejudiced and the error was harmless. See HRS § 91-14(g) (providing that the court "may reverse or modify the decision and order [of the agency] if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced").