Opinion ID: 870092
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grave errors of law or of fact; or

Text: (2) Obvious inconsistencies in the decision of the intermediate appellate court with that of the supreme court, federal decisions, or its own decision, and the magnitude of those errors or inconsistencies dictating the need for further appeal. 23 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Mgmt., LLC., No. 29824, 2009 WL 4988294 (App. Dec. 21, 2009) (order),22 in which the defendant moved to dismiss an appeal from an order compelling arbitration, arguing that “HRS § 658A-28 did not permit an appeal [from such] an order. . . .” The ICA, however, ruled that “HRS § 641-1(a) provides additional authority for appeals and authorizes appeals from judgments, orders, or decrees.” (Citing Picardy, 2009 WL 4988294 at .) (Emphasis added.) Applying this court’s decision in Swinerton, the ICA held that “orders granting stays of arbitration are appealable final orders.” (Citing Picardy, 2009 WL 4988294 at .) Relying on Picardy, Respondent contends that “several other jurisdictions [] have noted [that] similar statutes . . . do not represent an exclusive list of appealable orders.”23 Those jurisdictions recognize that “permitting appeals of orders compelling arbitration is logical and just since ‘these claims cannot be effectively vindicated after the party has been compell[ed] to do that which it claims it is not required to do.’” (Citing Kremer v. Rural Comm. Ins. Co., 788 N.W.2d 538, 549 (Neb. 2010).) Respondent explains that “delaying the appeal until after arbitration requires the parties to engage in a useless arbitration proceeding if the order compelling 22 Respondent argues that Picardy is a decision of this court. Westlaw has published the opinion as from the “Supreme Court of Hawai#i.” Picardy, 2009 WL 4988294. However, Picardy is an ICA decision. 23 Respondent cites Kremer, 788 N.W.2d at 547-48; Wein v. Morris, 944 A.2d 642, 651 (N.J. 2008); Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Assocs., Inc., 904 P.2d 73, 77 (Okla. 1995); and Collier v. Pennington, 69 P.3d 238, 240 (N.M. App. 2003). 24 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER arbitration was improper.” (Citing Evansville-Vanderburg Sch. Corp. v. Evansville Teacher’s Ass’n, 494 N.E. 2d 321, 322-23 (Ind. App. 1986).)24