Picardy is a decision of this court. Westlaw has published the opinion as from the “Supreme Court of Hawaii.” Picar-dy, 2009 WL 4988294. However, Picardy is an ICA decision. 22 . Respondent cites Kremer, 788 N.W.2d at SAY-AS; Wein v. Morris, 194 N.J. 364, 944 A.2d 642, 651 (2008); Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Assocs., Inc., 904 P.2d 73, 77 (Okla.1995); and Collier v. Pennington, 133 N.M. 728, 69 P.3d 238, 240 (N.M.App.2003). 23 . In Reply, Petitioners argue that they cannot have waived their jurisdictional argument because "[t]he ICA's improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction is a grave error of law that may be raised at any time.” (Citing Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Castle, 79 Hawai'i 64, 76, 898 P.2d 576, 588 (1995).) Also, Petitione Co., 534 Pa. 575, 633 A.2d 1143, 1145-46 (1993) (<HOLDING>); T.R. Mills Contractors, Inc. v. WRH
holding that orders compelling arbitration are not appealable not because of the uaa appeals provision but because it has been definitely settled by the supreme court of this state that an order compelling arbitration is not final and therefore is not appealable holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court holding that it is not holding that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable because it is not final and because it is not listed in the uaa appeals provision holding that an order granting a motion or application to compel arbitration is nonappealable because it is not listed in the uaa arbitration provision and because it is not a final order