Opinion ID: 3159610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal and secondary appeal

Text: Appellants appealed BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O to the circuit court, continuing to argue that BLNR’s approval of the CDUA and 7 This portion of BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O contains no emphasis. 23  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  issuance of the CDUP before a contested case hearing was inconsistent with Appellants’ rights to due process and pertinent statutes and rules. On May 5, 2014, the circuit court entered a decision and order affirming BLNR’s FOFs/COLs/D&O, and entered final judgment.8 The circuit court reasoned that “BLNR granted a contested case hearing essentially simultaneously with the preliminary grant of the CDUP[,]” and that the 2011 “preliminary grant” “depended upon a final grant of the permit after a contested case hearing.” In addition, the circuit court reasoned that the “preliminary grant” in 2011 “did not have such a legal consequence” that a contested case hearing was required to have preceded it, and Appellants were not prejudiced because a contested case hearing was held and construction had been stayed. Appellants appealed and sought transfer to this court, which we granted.