Laserfiche WebLink
0 o <br /> HRS § 91-14(g) enumerates the standards of review applicable to an agency appeal and <br /> provides: <br /> Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency <br /> or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may <br /> reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the <br /> petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, <br /> conclusions, decisions or orders are: <br /> (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or <br /> (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or <br /> (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or <br /> (4) Affected by other error of law; or <br /> (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial <br /> evidence on the whole record; or <br /> (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or <br /> clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> HRS § 91-14(g). <br /> `Under HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and <br /> (4); questions regarding procedural defects under subsection(3); findings of fact under <br /> subsection(5); and an agenc�s exercise of discretion under subsection (6)" Citizens Against <br /> Reckless Dev. V. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City and County of Honolulu, 114 Hawaii 184, 193, <br /> 159 P.3d 143, 152 (2007) (citations omitted). <br /> III. ARGUMENTS <br /> A. Motion to Dismiss Appeal was Properly Denied <br /> As discussed below, the circuit court properly denied the Motion to Dismiss Appeal for <br /> lack of jurisdiction and properly exercised its inherent power to correct the record to reflect the <br /> timely filing of the Notice of Appeal. As such,jurisdiction over the appeal remained with the <br /> Circuit Court. <br /> I <br /> 13 <br /> I <br />