Koolau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen's Medical Center

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard
• indicating that the standard of review on appeal is de novo on the question of whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration
• relying on federal authority given the similarities between HRS § 658-3 and 9 U.S.C. § 4
• “We review [motions to compel arbitration] de novo, using the same standard employed by the trial court and based upon the same evidentiary materials as were before it in determination of the motion.”
• “[b]efore compelling an unwilling party to arbitrate,” the court must “engage in a limited review to ensure that the dispute is arbi-trable — i.e., that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties”
• arbitration agreement limited scope of arbitration to determining lease values and did not give arbitrator power to decide legal issues such as statute of frauds or parol evidence rule related to alleged oral agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).