because the conclusion is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. As a general matter, a finding of fact or a 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. Substantial evidence is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Id. at 499, 146 P.3d at 1076 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted); see Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp., 115 Hawai'i 299, 167 P.3d 292 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Peroutka v. Cronin, 117 Hawai'i 323, 326,
holding constitutional questions reviewed de novo under the rightwrong standard holding that where the issues are basically questions of law and the trial court has reviewed them de novo due process is provided holding that in general an agencys conclusion of law that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard but questions concerning whether an agency has followed proper procedures or considered the appropriate factors in making its determination are questions of law which are reviewed de novo holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo recognizing that mixed questions of fact and law that are essentially factual in nature should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as opposed to the generally administered de novo standard