Suntera, The Solar Electric Chariot Company v. Quinn
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24631 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I SUNTERA, THE SOLAR ELECTRIC CHARIOT COMPANY, a Hawai#i corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. THOMAS QUINN; HAWAII ELECTRIC VEHICLE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT; BARBARA KIM-STANTON; HERBERT HENDRICKSON; DAVID YUN; HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Hawai#i corporation; KENNETH KATO; RICHARD MOODY; MAURICE KAYA; STATE OF HAWAI#I OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants-Appellees MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP, Party-in-Interest-Appellee and ARGYLE TELEVISION COMPANY; CATHERINE CRUZ; JOHN DOE AND JANE ROES, INDIVIDUALS 1 THROUGH 12; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1 THROUGH 12; DOE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 12; DOE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 5 AND STATE AGENCIES 1 THROUGH 5, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 96-3580) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that the circuit court s October 8, 2001 order is not an order denying a motion to compel arbitration under HRS § 658-3 that is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine inasmuch as HRS § 658-3 did not apply to the motion for withdrawal of counsel. Even if HRS § 658-3 applied to the motion for withdrawal of counsel, the October 8, 2001 order is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment in Civil No. 96-3580 inasmuch as appellant did not move that the withdrawal of counsel motion be stayed pending arbitration, the motion has already been heard by the circuit court and the appeal of the October 8, 2001 order would afford appellant a remedy in name, but not an adequate remedy in fact. See Assn. of Owners of Kukui Plaza v. Swinerton & Walberg, 68 Haw. 98, 107, 705 P.2d 28, 35 (1985); Koolau Radioliogy, Inc. v. Queen s Medical Center, 73 Haw. 433, 444, 834 P.2d 1294, 1300 (1992). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 30, 2002. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
