Printable Format26-504. Same; findings; order appointing appraisers; duties; appeals to supreme court, when. If the judge to whom the proceeding has been assigned finds from the petition: (1) The plaintiff has the power of eminent domain; and (2) the taking is necessary to the lawful corporate purposes of the plaintiff, the judge shall entertain suggestions from any party in interest relating to the appointment of appraisers and the judge shall enter an order appointing three disinterested residents of the county in which the petition is filed, at least two of the three of whom shall have experience in the valuation of real estate, to view and appraise the value of the lots and parcels of land found to be necessary, and to determine the damages and compensation to the interested parties resulting from the taking. Such order shall also fix the time for the filing of the appraisers' report at a time not later than 45 days after the entry of such order except for good cause shown, the court may extend the time for filing by a subsequent order. The granting of an order determining that the plaintiff has the power of eminent domain and that the taking is necessary to the lawful corporate purposes of the plaintiff shall not be considered a final order for the purpose of appeal to the supreme court, but an order denying the petition shall be considered such a final order.
Appeals to the supreme court may be taken from any final order under the provisions of this act. Such appeals shall be prosecuted in like manner as other appeals and shall take precedence over other cases, except cases of a like character and other cases in which preference is granted by statute.
History: L. 1963, ch. 234, § 4; L. 1999, ch. 111, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 110, § 6; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Survey of Kansas Oil and Gas Law (1988-1992)," Phillip E. DeLaTorre, 41 K.L.R. 691, 718 (1993).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Determination of necessity and authority inquest only; injunction landowner's relief. Urban Renewal Agency v. Decker, 197 Kan. 157, 158, 415 P.2d 373.
2. Applied; dismissal of tract of land in proceeding did not impliedly authorize application of code of civil procedure. State Highway Commission v. Bullard, 208 Kan. 558, 560, 493 P.2d 196.
3. Allowance of attorney's fee requires clear statutory authority. Schwartz v. Western Power & Gas Co., Inc., 208 Kan. 844, 849, 850, 494 P.2d 1113.
4. Date fixed by judge for filing appraiser's report is date from which appeal time computed, regardless of when report is delivered. Urban Renewal Agency v. Reed, 211 Kan. 705, 706, 708, 508 P.2d 1227.
5. Act applied; injunction proceeding against electric utility; no abuse of discretion; trial court's findings reviewed and affirmed. Concerned Citizens, United, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 215 Kan. 218, 226, 523 P.2d 755.
6. Court had no power to correct, modify or amend award following appeal or time for appeal. Unified School District v. Turk, 219 Kan. 655, 657, 658, 549 P.2d 882.
7. Determination that taking of land is necessary to lawful corporate purposes made by district court from allegations of petition. Steele v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 232 Kan. 855, 857, 858, 863, 659 P.2d 217 (1983).
8. Condemner's rights acquired and compensation to landowner considered. Barcus v. City of Kansas City, 8 Kan. App. 2d 506, 507, 661 P.2d 806 (1983).
9. Cited in holding K.S.A. 60-2102 does not provide for appeals in original eminent domain proceedings. In re Condemnation of Land for State Highway Purposes, 235 Kan. 676, 682, 683 P.2d 247 (1984).
10. Appeal of eminent domain proceedings under K.S.A. 60-2102(b); original proceeding in eminent domain not truly classed as litigation. Razook v. Kemp, 236 Kan. 156, 159, 690 P.2d 376 (1984).
11. Where appraisers' report filed after date fixed by court, parties have 30 days thereafter to appeal. City of Shawnee v. Webb, 236 Kan. 504, 505, 507, 694 P.2d 896 (1985).
12. Method of determining compensation for condemnation of underground gas storage reservoirs examined. Union Gas System, Inc. v. Carnahan, 245 Kan. 80, 85, 91, 774 P.2d 962 (1989).
13. City not permitted to complain about what it must pay for taking for a future intended use. Van Horn v. City of Kansas City, 249 Kan. 404, 405, 409, 819 P.2d 624 (1991).
14. Condemnation proceeding voided by statutory defects including failure to list tracts and record owners in petition and notice. City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 Kan. 534, 546, 939 P.2d 926 (1997).
15. No error to split PIC instructions into three separate instructions. Secretary of Kansas Dept. of Transportation v. Underwood Equipment, Inc., 273 Kan. 453, 44 P.3d 439 (2002).
16. Reversible error to exclude prior inconsistent statement by owner as to his estimate of value of land being taken by city through eminent domain proceeding. City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co., 279 Kan. 799, 112 P.3d 125 (2005).
17. Denial of plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim directly appealable to Kansas Supreme Court. Kau Kau Take Home No. 1 v. City of Wichita, 281 Kan. 1185, 1188, 135 P.3d 1221 (2006).
18. Cited; school district entitled to use eminent domain for reversionary interest in school property. Young Partners v. U.S.D. No. 214, 284 Kan. 397, 410, 411, 160 P.3d 830 (2007).
19. Cited in discussion on the sequential order of parties in eminent domain proceedings. Miller v. Glacier Development Co., 284 Kan. 476, 499, 500, 161 P.3d 730 (2007).
20. Mentioned in upholding eminent domain proceeding by telephone company; injunctive relief denied. Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 286 Kan. 19, 24, 25, 29, 180 P.3d 571 (2008).
21. Appeal of denial of motion to stay eminent domain jury trial, district court did not lose jurisdiction. Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 200 P.3d 467 (2009).
22. Eminent domain motion for summary judgment, nonmoving party has affirmative duty regarding facts to support party's claim. U.S.D. No. 232 v. CWD Investments, 288 Kan. 536, 205 P.3d 1245 (2009).
23. Additional evidence may be taken upon appeal from appraisers' award. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).
24. Administrative ordinance not subject to initiative and referendum; principles discussed whether ordinance administrative or legislative. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391, 212 P.3d 184 (2009).
25. Eminent domain statutes discussed; school district's purchase of land later resold. Knop v. Gardner Edgerton U.S.D. No. 231, 41 Kan. App. 2d 698, 205 P.3d 755 (2009).