Laserfiche WebLink
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** <br /> argue that the LPC did not abuse its discretion by ending <br /> proceedings on Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 once it <br /> was voluntarily withdrawn by Bolton. Throughout its brief, <br /> Appellees emphasize that Hualalai "got exactly what it wanted <br /> from the LPC" because Special Permit Application No . SPP-16-188 <br /> "was never approved. " <br /> II . STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> Pursuant to HRS § 205-19, this court reviews agency <br /> decisions in contested cases under HRS § 91-14, which states, in <br /> relevant part : <br /> Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the <br /> decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions <br /> for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the <br /> decision and order if the substantial rights of the <br /> petitioners may have been prejudiced because the <br /> administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders <br /> are: <br /> (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory <br /> provisions; <br /> (2) In excess of the statutory authority or <br /> jurisdiction of the agency; <br /> (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; <br /> (4) Affected by other error of law; <br /> (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, <br /> probative, and substantial evidence on the whole <br /> record; or <br /> (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by <br /> abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise <br /> of discretion. <br /> HRS § 91-14 (g) . This court has further clarified that <br /> [c] onclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to <br /> subsections (1) , (2) and (4) ; questions regarding <br /> procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3) ; <br /> findings of fact (FOF) are reviewable under the clearly <br /> 20 <br />