Opinion ID: 2509107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Heavy burden

Text: In the past, we have also held that the party seeking to overturn an agency's action has the heavy burden of making a convincing showing that the decision is invalid[.] Id. This is correctan appellant does have a heavy burdenbut it is imprecise insofar as it suggests that the standard of review is something different (or more rigorous) than abuse of discretion. Agency determinations, even if made within the agency's sphere of expertise, are not presumptively valid; however, an agency's discretionary determinations are entitled to deference, and an appellant has a high burden to surmount that deference: The abuse of discretion standard applies to all discretionary decisions of lower tribunals. Discretion is a flexible concept: [w]hen invoked as a guide to judicial action it means a sound discretion, that is to say, a discretion exercised not arbitrarily or wilfully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law, and directed by the reason and conscience of the judge to a just result. [ Booker v. Midpac Lumber Co., 65 Haw. 166, 172, 649 P.2d 376, 380 (1982) (quoting Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 [51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520] (1931)).] .... A strong showing is required to establish an abuse, and each case must be decided on its own facts.... The most commonly repeated definition was first articulated in State v. Sacoco [, 45 Haw. 288, 292, 367 P.2d 11, 13 (1961)]: [G]enerally, to constitute an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.[ [9] ] This definition is appropriate because it highlights the great deference appellate courts generally give to discretionary decisions, and conveys the high burden of arbitrariness or caprice which an appellant must meet to overcome that deference. Michael J. Yoshii, Appellate Standards of Review in Hawaii, 7 U. Haw. L.Rev. 273, 292-93 (1985) (footnotes omitted) (some alterations in original and some added). Thus, an appellant seeking to overturn an agency's determination made within the agency's sphere of expertise has a high burden to demonstrate that the agency abused its discretion. A high burden, a heavy burden, and deference are all ways of expressing this same concept: that a determination made by an administrative agency acting within the boundaries of its delegated authority will not be overturned unless arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by ... [a] clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. (HRS § 91-14(g)(6)). In summary, when reviewing a determination of an administrative agency, we first decide whether the legislature granted the agency discretion to make the determination being reviewed. If the legislature has granted the agency discretion over a particular matter, then we review the agency's action pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard (bearing in mind the legislature determines the boundaries of that discretion). If the legislature has not granted the agency discretion over a particular matter, then the agency's conclusions are subject to de novo review.