Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14

Section 91-14(g) does not require a reviewing court to order an agency to modify its existing order when remanding an appeal.

Department of Public Safety v. Naumu · filed 2022-02-17(g)

Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(g), there is no requirement that the Circuit Court must order an agency to modify the agency's order.

Section 91-14(g) requires agency findings and reasoning clear enough for judicial review; an unexplained order may be vacated and remanded for an explanation.

Gao v. Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board · filed 2022-09-08(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g): A court reviewing the decision of an agency should ensure that the agency make[s] its findings reasonably clear. ... We are unable to determine whether LIRAB's decision was clearly erroneous, right, wrong, or an abuse of discretion.

Section 91-14 permits a circuit court to remand an agency decision with instructions while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal.

Wo v. Board of Land and Natural Resources · filed 2023-11-08(g), (i)

As HRS §§ 91-14(g) and (i) permit, Judge Nishimura remanded the case, instructing the Board to determine whether a Supplemental EIS was warranted based on the existing record without taking new evidence, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 91-14(g) requires prejudice to a party’s substantial rights before a court reverses or modifies an agency decision for a procedural error.

Rigotti v. Planning Department of the County of Kauai · filed 2024-10-30(g)

However, the Rigottis nevertheless timely filed their first notice of appeal. We thus deem the error harmless. See Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 61 ("The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."); HRS § 91-14(g) (Supp. 2023) (permitting a court to reverse or modify an agency decision if the substantial rights of the parties have been prejudiced) (emphasis added).

Section 91-14(g) permits reversal or modification when an agency decision may have prejudiced a petitioner’s substantial rights, without requiring the reviewing court to state that finding orally or in writing.

AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma · filed 2023-12-19(g)

The plain language of HRS § 91-14(g) provides that a court may reverse or modify an agency decision and order "if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because" of the agency's decision. (Emphasis added.) The provision does not, by its plain language, require the court to articulate or provide written findings to that effect.

Section 91-14(g) authorizes a reviewing court to vacate an agency decision and remand for a new hearing.

Pernis v. Examiner of Drivers · filed 2025-06-27(g)

The Circuit Court was authorized to vacate the licensing examiner's decision and order a remand for a new hearing to be conducted.

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

Zachary v. Employees' Retirement System · filed 2026-02-12(g)

In any event, Zachary has not shown that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the first delay, particularly in light of his own later actions to delay oral argument before the ERS Board (see infra) and the Board's ultimate determination, which we have affirmed, that he was not entitled to service- connected disability retirement. See S. Foods Grp., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Educ., 89 Hawai#i 443, 453, 974 P.2d 1033, 1043 (1999) (to reverse or modify an agency decision under HRS § 91–14(g), "the appellate court must conclude that an appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by the agency." (citing In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 81 Hawai#i at 465, 918 P.2d at 567)).

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

In re: Request of Payment of, Lawinski, M.D. v. Saiki · filed 2026-02-13(g)

Even assuming arguendo the "experimental or investigational" language in the Circuit Court's COL 12 was error, Dr. Lawinski has not shown prejudice resulting from the exhibits' admission, where Dr. Lawinski admitted similar exhibits into evidence, and where the Hearings Officer determined that Dr. Lawinski "did not submit any evidence that LLLT treatment is reimbursed by prepaid health care plans." See S. Foods Grp., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Educ., 89 Hawaiʻi 443, 453, 974 P.2d 1033, 1043 (1999) (to reverse or modify an agency decision under HRS § 91-14(g), "the appellate court must conclude that an appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced by the agency" (citation omitted)).

Section 91-14(g)(3) authorizes reversal of an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure even if the decision is substantively correct.

Martel v. Employee Retirement System · filed 2026-05-04(g)(3)

HRS § 91- 14(g)(3) authorizes reversal for decisions “[m]ade upon unlawful procedure.” There is no exception for decisions that are substantively correct.

Section 91-14(g)(3) permits reversal of an agency order when unlawful procedure prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights.

Norrie v. Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals · filed 2026-05-08(g)(3)

Accordingly, in light of the prejudice to Norrie's substantial rights to operate his B&B that occurred because of the unlawful procedure in this case, we reverse the BVA Order. See HRS § 91-14(g)(3); Martell, slip op. at 17.

Section 91-14(g) permits a reviewing court to remand an agency case with instructions for further proceedings.

Suzuki v. American Healthways, Inc. · filed 2025-04-17(g)

Under HRS § 91-14(g) we may remand the case with instructions for further proceedings.

Section 91-14 does not provide circuit court review of proceedings under chapter 386 because sections 386-73 and 386-88 supersede it.

Ras v. Hasegawa · filed 1972-08-29

Although the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, including its director and appellate board, is an “agency” within the meaning of HRS § 91-1(1), HRS § 386-73 (1970 Supp.) and HRS § 386-88 (1970 Supp.) supersede HRS § 91-14 and remove the circuit court from the appellate process altogether with regard to proceedings brought under HRS ch. 386.

Section 91-14 makes judicial review of a contested agency decision an appeal, so the agency’s failure to answer the appellant’s statement of the case does not entitle the appellant to a default judgment.

Costa v. Sunn · filed 1985-02-21

Second, as was clearly stated by the supreme court in Life of the Land v. Land Use Commission, supra, the provisions of HRS § 91-14 and Rule 72, HRCP, “establish the nature of the proceeding before the court as an appeal.” ... The powers of the circuit court over an administrative appeal substantially parallel those of an appellate court over appeals. ... We, therefore, conclude that DSSH’s failure to file an answer to Walker’s statement of the case did not entitle Walker to a default judgment.

Section 91-14 provides a special judicial-review remedy for challenges to a contested-case permit decision, and an available appeal under it precludes a separate declaratory judgment action challenging that decision.

Maui Lani Neighbors v. State · filed 2023-12-28

Thus, HRS §§ 46-4(a) and 91-14 provide a special form of remedy for the claims that MLN raises in Counts II and IV. The failure of MLN members to intervene in the Planning Commission proceeding and appeal from the issuance of the CUP under HRS § 91-14 precludes declaratory relief under HRS § 632-1.

Section 91-14(a) permits a party to raise a facial constitutional challenge to an agency’s governing statute in circuit court alongside an appeal from the agency’s decision.

HOH Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board · filed 1987-05-11(a)

We think this was proper, since “nothing in [HRS § 91-14] shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, [or] relief.. . provided by law.” HRS § 91-14(a). That the request was coupled with another for relief expressly authorized by HRS § 91-14 should not preclude the circuit court from considering the request and affording redress or relief if warranted.

Section 91-14 permits a circuit court hearing an agency appeal to decide a constitutional challenge to the policy at issue, even when the agency could not decide that challenge.

Pladera v. County of Maui · filed 2023-03-24(g)(1)

COL no. 20 was not wrong. The circuit court concluded "that HRS § 91-14 grants it the ability to review the constitutionality of actions taken by the Commission[.]" ... Under the supreme court's reasoning in HOH Corp., the circuit court in this case could have decided Pladera's challenge to the constitutionality of MPD's PRS-PC. We remand for the circuit court to do so.

Section 91-14(a) allows judicial review of final decisions in contested agency cases, but its general remedy yields to the exclusive tax appeal procedure in § 232-17 for appeals from boards of review.

Kinkaid v. Board of Review of the City and County of Honolulu · filed 2004-11-29(a)

The conclusion follows that the agency-specific provision for appellate review found in HRS § 232-17 supplants the more general judicial remedy provided in HRS § 91-14.

Section 91-14 permits circuit court review of agency orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings under section 91-8.

Lingle v. Hawai'i Government Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152 · filed 2005-03-31(a)

Accordingly, we hold that orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings under HRS § 91-8 are appealable to the circuit court pursuant to HRS § 91-14.

Section 91-14 directs an appeal from an agency order disposing of a petition for declaratory ruling to the circuit court unless a statute authorizes a direct appeal to the intermediate appellate court.

In re Tawhiri Power LLC · filed 2012-01-27(b)

Tawhiri Power should have filed an appeal to the circuit court pursuant to HRS §§ 91-8 and 91-14.

Section 91-14 allows an aggrieved person to appeal an agency response to a petition for a declaratory order under section 91-8 even without a contested case.

Lawson v. Attorney General. · filed 2015-06-18(a)

Use of the “contested case” analytical framework misses the mark because appeals of agency responses to petitions by aggrieved persons for declaratory orders pursuant to HRS § 91-8 are appealable pursuant to HRS § 91-14.

Section 91-14(b) permits direct supreme court review of an agency declaratory order when another statute authorizes direct review, even though the order did not arise from a contested case.

In re: The Petition of Ku'ulei Higashi Kanahele and Ahiena Kanahele. · filed 2023-03-15(b)

However, HRS §§ 91-8, 91-14, and 205-19 together provide for this court’s review of the Kanaheles’ appeal of the LUC Order, even though the LUC Order was not part of a contested case.

Section 91-14(f) does not limit a family court to the agency record when reviewing a DHS child-placement decision.

In the Interest of AS · filed 2013-03-28(f)

HRS § 91-14 does not apply in this case. ... The court did not err by independently determining what placement was in AS’s best interests.

Section 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board.

Skahan v. Stutts Construction Company. Consolidated with CAAP-16-0000663. · filed 2020-12-24

However, HRS § 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB.

Section 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB.

Skahan v. Stutts Construction Company. · filed 2020-12-24(c)

HRS § 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB.

Section 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB, so LIRAB need not justify a stay of payments under subsection (c).

Skahan v. Stutts Construction Company, Inc. · filed 2020-12-24(c)

However, HRS § 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB.

Section 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board.

Skahan v. Stutts Construction Company, Inc. · filed 2021-01-08(c)

However, HRS § 91-14 applies to judicial courts, not LIRAB.

Section 91-14(c) permits a stay of an agency decision when the statutory stay factors are met, including that the public interest will be served.

State of Hawai'i, Department of Public Safety v. Forbes · filed 2024-03-15(c)

Regarding the final factor, inter alia, the public interest would be served by having Kulani be run free from Forbes's substantiated hostile and harassing workplace behavior until a final decision on the merits. We conclude that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in its Order Granting Stay.

Under section 91-14(a), an agency decision that leaves an application undecided and continues the contested-case hearing is not a final decision and order subject to judicial review.

CS Development LLC v. County of Kaua'i Planning Department · filed 2025-06-04(a)

Accordingly, the November 16, 2021 FOFs/COLs was not a "final decision and order" under HRS § 91-14(a), and the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 91-14(a) permits other remedies provided by law, but its allowance for other remedies does not apply when no alternative remedy is available for the claim.

Maui Lani Neighbors v. State. ICA Opinion, filed 12/28/2023 [ada], 153 Haw. 527. Application for Writ of Certiorari, fil · filed 2025-09-12(a)

MLN and amici correctly note that HRS § 91-14 does not preclude other remedies “provided by law.” ... Thus, HRS § 91-14’s non-exclusivity clause has no application to MLN’s claims as pleaded.