Laserfiche WebLink
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** <br /> (citing E . Diamond Head Ass' n v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 52 Haw. <br /> 518, 524 479 P. 2d 796, 799 (1971) ) . A case in which no formal <br /> contested case hearing is held can be considered a "contested <br /> case" within the meaning of chapter 91 . In Kilakila `0 Haleakala <br /> v. Bd. of Land & Nat . Res . , where administrative rules required <br /> a hearing by law but no contested case hearing was actually <br /> held, this court considered "whether a formal hearing would have <br /> determined--or whether the proceedings that did take place <br /> determined--the `rights, duties, or privileges of specific <br /> parties . '" 131 Hawaii 193, 202, 317 P. 3d 27, 36 (2013) <br /> (emphasis added) (finding a contested case where the proceedings <br /> that took place determined the agency' s rights, duties, and <br /> privileges, even though a formal hearing was never held) . Thus, <br /> absence of a formal contested case hearing does not preclude a <br /> finding that the proceeding was a contested case . <br /> The proceeding for Special Permit Application No . SPP- <br /> 16-188 was a contested case because an agency hearing was <br /> required by the LPC rules and statutes relevant to the issuance <br /> of special permits, LPC Rule 4, 6; HRS §§ 91-9, 205-6 <br /> (referenced by HCC § 25-2-61 (c) ) , and such a hearing would have <br /> determined the "legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific <br /> parties [ , ] " HRS § 91-1 . Bolton submitted Special Permit <br /> Application No . SPP-16-188 pursuant to LPC Rule 6, which <br /> requires that the LPC hold a public hearing as part of the <br /> 29 <br />