12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court

Home

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** The proceedings following Bolton' s submission of Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 constituted a contested case within the meaning of HRS § 91-14 (a) and PASH because, although no agency hearing occurred, a hearing was required by LPC Rules 4 and 6 and HRS § 91-9 to determine Bolton' s and Hualalai' s respective legal rights and duties . b. The Planning Director' s withdrawal of Special Permit Application No. SPP-16-188 constituted a "final decision. " The second requirement for judicial review under HRS § 91-14 is that the appeal is from a final decision made by the agency. PASH, 79 Hawaii at 431, 903 P. 2d at 1252 . A final decision or order is one that "end [s] the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. " Gealon v. Keala, 60 Haw. 513, 520, 591 P. 2d 621, 626 (1979) . Such a decision can take the form of an agency' s formal denial of a party' s request for a contested case hearing, see, e .g. , Kaleikini v. Thielen, 124 Hawaii 1, 26, 237 P . 3d 1067, 1092 (2010) , or an agency' s denial of a party' s request to intervene in a contested case, see, e .g. , PASH, 79 Hawaii at 433-34, 903 P. 2d at 1254-55 . An agency' s failure to deny or grant a party' s request for a ( . . . continued) occur[, ] " and "shall notify the land use commission and such persons and agencies that may have an interest in the subject matter of the time and place of the hearing." § 205-6 (b) . 31