Opinion ID: 2519241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Administrative Decisions

Text: HRS § 174C-12 (1993) provides: Judicial review of rules and orders of the commission under this chapter shall be governed by [HRS] chapter 91 [of the Hawai`i Administrative Procedures Act, or HAPA]. Trial de novo is not allowed on review of commission actions under this chapter. Regarding appeals from agency decisions generally, HRS § 91-14(g) (1993) enumerates the standards of review applicable to an agency appeal and provides: 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 findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are: (1) In violation of constitutional and 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 substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. GATRI v. Blane, 88 Hawai`i 108, 112, 962 P.2d 367, 371 (1998) (citing Poe v. Hawai`i Labor Relations Bd., 87 Hawai`i 191, 194-95, 953 P.2d 569, 572-73 (1998)). [FOFs] are reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard to determine if the agency decision was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Alvarez v. Liberty House, Inc., 85 Hawai`i 275, 277, 942 P.2d 539, 541 (1997); HRS § 91-14(g)(5). [COLs] are freely reviewable to determine if the agency's decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of agency, or affected by other error of law. Hardin v. Akiba, 84 Hawai`i 305, 310, 933 P.2d 1339, 1344 (1997) (citations omitted); HRS §§ 91-14(g)(1), (2), and (4). A COL that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Price v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City and County of Honolulu, 77 Hawai`i 168, 172, 883 P.2d 629, 633 (1994). When mixed questions of law and fact are presented, an appellate court must give deference to the agency's expertise and experience in the particular field. Dole Hawaii Division-Castle & Cooke, Inc. v. Ramil, 71 Haw. 419, 424, 794 P.2d 1115, 1118 (1990). [T]he court should not substitute is own judgment for that of the agency. Id. (citing Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984)). Poe, 87 Hawai`i at 197, 953 P.2d at 573 In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai`i 97, 119, 9 P.3d 409, 431 (2000) ( Waiahole I ) (quoting Curtis v. Board of Appeals, 90 Hawai`i 384, 392-93, 978 P.2d 822, 830-31 (1999)). An FOF or mixed determination of law and fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding or determination, or (2) despite substantial evidence to support the finding or determination, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. See Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawaii 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999). We have defined `substantial evidence' as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999)). Id.