Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2015

Home

December 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin where multiple requests for judicial review are initiated, "the appeal of each is called a `cross-appeal' as regards that of the other[s]." In other words, said the court, "cross-appeals exist whenever more than one party requests judicial review of the same decision." The court further found that the plain language of HRS § 91-14(a) showed the Hawai'i Legislature contemplated that multiple requests for review of a single decision and order may be initiated. See HRS § 91-14 (" Any person ag- grieved . . . is entitled to judicial review . . .." (emphasis added)). Thus; HRS § 91-14 specifically permits the filing of cross-appeals in circumstances where multiple parties request judicial review of an agency decision within the 30-day window provided in HRS § 91-14(b). Again, Friends had contended that the 30-day deadline set forth in HRS § 91-14(b) did not apply to its cross-appeal. Instead, Friends had argued that court rules—specifically, Rule 4.1 of the H.R.A.P.—applied. Friends argued that Rule 4.1 conferred a "right" to cross-appeal in certain circumstances. The court found there was "no need to comment on whether a `right' to cross-appeal [was] bestowed by [H.R.A.P.] Rule 4.1, as the [H.R.A.P] [did] not apply to a circuit court's review of administrative decisions and orders." The court explained that although a circuit court might assume an appellate role when reviewing administrative decisions, it is not an "appellate court" as that term is used in the H.R.A.P., and therefore the H.R.A.P.—including Rule 4.1—did not apply to it. In its holding, the court also noted that the state of Nebraska had concluded that in the absence of a specific statutory provision, "cross-appeals" of administrative decisions—such as Friend's here—were subject to the same fil- ing deadlines as the initial appeal. The court found that the Hawai'i statute— HRS § 91-14(b) Was similar to the Nebraska statute evaluated in that case, with a similar omission of extended or different deadlines to file a cross-appeal. Thus, the court concluded that, unless the Hawai'i legislature enacts a provi- sion specifying the times for cross-appeals, an "aggrieved person" seeking judicial review of an administrative decision under the Hawai'i Administrative Procedures Act must institute review proceedings within 30-days after service of the final decision and order, as provided in HRS § 91-14. The court affirmed the circuit court's determination that Friends untimely filed its "cross-appeal." See also: Lingle v. Hawaii Government Employees Ass 'n, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO, 107 Haw. 178, 111 P.3d 587, 177L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2103 (2005). © 2014 Thomson Reuters