Laserfiche WebLink
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** <br /> Hawaii 425, 431, 903 P. 2d 1246, 1252 (1995) (internal quotation <br /> marks omitted) . "In other words, there are four requirements <br /> for judicial review over an agency appeal : a contested case <br /> hearing, finality, compliance with agency rule, and standing. " <br /> In re Maui Elec. Co . , Ltd. (MECO) , 141 Hawaii 249, 258, 408 P. 3d <br /> 1, 10 (2017) . This court may exercise judicial review of this <br /> appeal pursuant to HRS §§ 205-19 and 91-14 because Hualalai is <br /> aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case in which it <br /> has participated and followed agency rules, and has established <br /> standing. <br /> a. The proceeding for Special Permit Application No. <br /> SPP-16-188 was a "contested case. " <br /> The first requirement for judicial review under HRS <br /> § 91-14 is that the appeal be from a contested case proceeding. <br /> PASH, 79 Hawaii at 431, 903 P. 2d at 1252 . A "contested case" is <br /> "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges <br /> of specific parties are required by law to be determined after <br /> an opportunity for agency hearing. " HRS § 91-1 . For an agency <br /> hearing to be "required by law" it must be required by agency <br /> rule, statute, or constitutional due process . See MECO, 141 <br /> Hawaii at 258, 408 P. 3d at 10 . This court has found that "a <br /> public hearing, conducted pursuant to published notice, was a <br /> `contested case' within the meaning of HRS [§] 91-1 . " In re <br /> Haw. Elec. Co . , 56 Haw. 260, 264, 535 P. 2d 1102, 1105 (1975) <br /> 28 <br />