Opinion ID: 6491296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Circuit Cotirt’s Disposition Of An Appeal From, An Agency8 Decision

Text: “ ‘Review of a decision made by the circuit court upon its review of an agency’s decision is a secondary appeal. The standard of review is one in which this court must determine whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its decision, applying the standards set forth in HRS § 91-14(g) [(Supp.2004), 9 see infra section II.B].... ’ ” Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawai'i v. Concerned Citizens of Pololo, 107 Hawai'i 371, 381, 114 P.3d 113, 123 (2005) (“Korean Temple III”) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87 Hawai'i 217, 229, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327 (1998) (“Korean Temple II”)). B. Agency Decision HRS § 91-14[ ] provides: (g) Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative [FOFs], [COLs], decisions, or orders are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (4) Affected by other error of law; or (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantia] evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. HRS § 91-14(g).... Under HRS § 91-14(g), [COLs] are reviewable under subsections (1), (2), and (4); questions regarding procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3); [FOFs] are reviewable under subsection (5); and an agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewable under subsection (6). Sussel v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 74 Haw. 599, 609, 851 P.2d 311, 317 (1993) (citing Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate, 4 Haw.App. 633, 638-39, 675 P.2d 784, 789 (1983)), quoted in, e.g., Korean Temple III, 107 Hawai'i at 381, 114 P.3d at 123; Tam v. Kaiser Permanente, 94 Hawai'i 487, 494, 17 P.3d 219, 226 (2001); Flor v. Holguin, 94 Hawai'i 70, 76, 9 P.3d 382, 388 (2000); In re Gray Line Hawai‘i, Ltd., 93 Hawai'i 45, 53, 995 P.2d 776, 784 (2000); Potter v. Hawaii Newspaper Agency, 89 Hawai'i 411, 421-22, 974 P.2d 51, 61-62 (1999); Korean Temple II, 87 Hawai'i at 229, 953 P.2d at 1327. C. Grant Of Motion To Dismiss Complaint We must ... view a plaintiffs complaint in a light most favorable to him or her in order to determine whether the allegations contained therein could warrant relief under any alternative theory. Ravelo [ v. County of Hawaii], 66 Haw. [194,] 199, 658 P.2d [883,] 886 [(1983)]. For this reason, ... our consideration is strictly limited to the allegations of the complaint, and we must deem those allegations to be true. Au [v. Au ], 63 Haw. [210,] 214, 626 P.2d [173,] 177 [(1981)]. Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 545, 852 P.2d 44, 52 (1993), quoted in Keauhou Master Homeowners Ass’n v. County of Hawai’i, 104 Hawai'i 214, 218, 87 P.3d 883, 887 (2004); In re Estate of Rogers, 103 Hawai'i 275, 280-81, 81 P.3d 1190, 1195-96 (2003).