Printable Format20-3017. Motion to transfer case from court of appeals to supreme court; requirements; disposition of case by supreme court; failure to file motion deemed waiver of objection to jurisdiction of court of appeals. Within 30 days after the date the notice of appeal has been served on the appellee in any case appealed to the court of appeals, any party to such case may file a motion with the clerk of the court of appeals, requesting that such case be transferred to the supreme court for review and final determination by such court. Such motion shall be made in the manner and form prescribed by rules of the supreme court, and it shall allege the existence of one or more of the conditions described in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 20-3016, and amendments thereto. The clerk of the court of appeals promptly shall submit any motion made pursuant to this section to the supreme court. The supreme court shall consider such motion and may accept the case for review and final determination or may decline jurisdiction and order that the case be determined by the court of appeals. A party's failure to file a motion in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of any objection by such party to the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.
History: L. 1975, ch. 178, § 17; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Family Law: Don't Disobey the Parental Preference Doctrine [In re Guardianship of Williams, 869 P.2d 661 (Kan. 1994)]," R. Todd Ehlert, 34 W.L.J. 118, 123 (1994).
"Negligence: Weakened Defenses To Nonclient Malpractice Claims or Jeopardizing Affordable Trusts [Pizel v. Whalen, 845 P.2d 37 (Kan. 1993)]," Michael Callahan, 34 W.L.J. 599, 603 (1995).
"Kansas Appellate Advocacy: An Inside View of Common-Sense Strategy," Patrick Hughes, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 26 (1997).
"Buy Out or Get Out: Why Covenants Not to Compete in Surgeon Employment Contracts Are Truly Bad Medicine [Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 112 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2005)]," Mike J. Wyatt, 45 W.L.J. 715 (2006).
""Attention Kansas Water Right Holders" Be Nice to Your Neighbors, They're Policing Your Water Rights [Hawley v. Kansas Dep't of Agric., 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2005)]," Tyler A. Darnell, 46 W.L.J. 429 (2007).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statute applied; jurisdiction accepted by supreme court on motion of appellant in action seeking a declaratory judgment on constitutionality of K.S.A. 79-342; K.S.A. 79-342 declared unconstitutional. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 227 Kan. 456, 458, 608 P.2d 880.
2. Subpoena power of Kansas commission on civil rights cannot be unreasonable or oppressive. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 229 Kan. 15, 16, 622 P.2d 124.
3. Cited; delay from authorized interlocutory appeal (K.S.A. 22-3603) should not count in determining defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial. State v. Galloway, 238 Kan. 100, 108, 708 P.2d 508 (1985).
4. Cited; scope of judicial review on appeal from KCC rate-making order in re Wolf Creek nuclear facility examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 239 Kan. 483, 498, 720 P.2d 1063 (1986).
5. Annexation procedure under K.S.A. 12-521 subject of appeal transferred hereunder. In re Petition of City of Overland Park for Annexation of Land, 241 Kan. 365, 366, 736 P.2d 923 (1987).
6. Cited; determination of trade union's property used to promote membership interests as nonexempt from taxation (K.S.A. 79-201) examined. In re Application of Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 242 Kan. 302, 305, 747 P.2d 781 (1987).
7. Cited; limitations on modifications of separation agreement incorporated into divorce decree examined. Bair v. Bair, 242 Kan. 629, 750 P.2d 994 (1988).
8. Cited; effect of memorandum of understanding and remedies therein regarding meal periods and work schedules of sheriff's deputies examined. Atteberry v. Ritchie, 243 Kan. 277, 279, 756 P.2d 424 (1988).
9. Scope of review from district court in workers compensation case stated and applied. Hughes v. Inland Container Corp., 247 Kan. 407, 408, 789 P.2d 1011 (1990).
10. Interplay of K.S.A. 44-503, 44-532a of the workers compensation act examined concerning fund liability for certain employers. Workers Compensation Fund v. Silicone Distributing, Inc., 248 Kan. 551, 552, 809 P.2d 1199 (1991).
11. Constitutionality of statutes (K.S.A. 79-3201 et seq.) taxing federal military retirement benefits examined and upheld. Barker v. State, 249 Kan. 186, 187, 815 P.2d 46 (1991).
12. Responsibility of school district for child abuse allegations against third party's employee/bus driver examined. Kansas State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc., 249 Kan. 348, 350, 819 P.2d 587 (1991).
13. Common-law defense of assumption of risk examined; court found defense not altered by adoption of comparative fault. Tuley v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 252 Kan. 205, 209, 843 P.2d 248 (1992).
14. Examined and determined that specific statutory authority not a prerequisite for vehicle/sobriety checkpoint. Davis v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 252 Kan. 224, 225, 843 P.2d 260 (1992).