Opinion ID: 3158349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Vacate Based on Evident Partiality

Text: As stated in Nordic, “in reviewing a circuit court’s rulings on a motion to vacate for evident partiality . . . whether a duty of disclosure exists . . . is a question of law; [and] whether it has been breached . . . is a question of 20 ____ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ____ fact[.]” 136 Hawaiʻi at 42, 358 P.3d at 14. Here, the circuit court concluded that based on the facts surrounding Yim’s failure to disclose, there was no demonstration of evident partiality. Because this conclusion presents a mixed question of law and fact, we review it under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., Panado v. Bd. of Trs., Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 134 Hawaiʻi 1, 12, 12 n.11, 332 P.3d 144, 155, 155 n.11 (2014) (stating a “mixed question of law and fact, . . . is simply an issue that must be determined by applying the law to the facts of a case” and applying the clearly erroneous standard (citing Price v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 77 Hawaiʻi 168, 172, 883 P.2d 629, 633 (1994) (applying the clearly erroneous standard of review to a mixed question of law and fact, defined as a conclusion “dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case”))).