Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Survey of Kansas law on real and personal property (1965-1969), 18 K.L.R. 427, 436 (1970).

"Administrative Law: The Kansas Commission on Civil Rights—True De Novo Review Arrives," Samuel D. Ogelby, 16 W.L.J. 161, 163 (1976).

"Judicial Review of Administrative Action—Kansas Perspectives," David L. Ryan, 19 W.L.J. 423, 433 (1980).

"What Should Lawyers Know from the 2003 Kansas Legislative Session?" Whitney B. Damron, 72 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 16 (2003).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Considered in appeal from award. Diefenbach v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 445, 450, 407 P.2d 228.

2. Appeal from award by one party raises issue of damages to all interests. Dotson v. State Highway Commission, 198 Kan. 671, 675, 426 P.2d 138.

3. The phrase "tried as any other civil action" applies to presentation of facts on appeal, not to formation of pleadings; eminent domain statute forms the issue and takes the place of pleadings. City of Wellington v. Miller, 200 Kan. 651, 652, 438 P.2d 53.

4. No dismissal without prejudice of appeal in condemnation proceeding; when one party appeals, other parties are in position of cross-appellants and appeal cannot be discussed over objection of any person having interest in the land. City of Wellington v. Miller, 200 Kan. 651, 652, 653, 438 P.2d 53.

5. Docketing of an appeal as a civil action not changed by amendment. State Highway Commission v. Lee, 207 Kan. 284, 290, 485 P.2d 310.

6. Limitation on appeal from award does not apply to determination of disputes as to distribution between co-owners. Urban Renewal Agency v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 208 Kan. 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 491 P.2d 886.

7. Motion to dismiss as to certain tract of land; procedural; motion to intervene by leaseholder not allowed. State Highway Commission v. Bullard, 208 Kan. 558, 560, 493 P.2d 196.

8. 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, 508 P.2d 1227.

9. Appeal hereunder; K.S.A. 26-509 construed; attorney fees allowed where action commenced on date section became effective. Fellers v. State Highway Commission, 214 Kan. 630, 631, 522 P.2d 341.

10. 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, 549 P.2d 882.

11. Compensable damages for taking access to motel; parol evidence upheld. Kohn Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 221 Kan. 230, 233, 559 P.2d 771.

12. Method of establishing value of property upheld; no abuse of discretion in admission of testimony or evidence. Ellis v. City of Kansas City, 225 Kan. 168, 175, 589 P.2d 552.

13. Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of specific value of leasehold interest but allowing evidence thereof as factor in arriving at value. City of Manhattan v. Kent, 228 Kan. 513, 516, 517, 519, 520, 618 P.2d 1180.

14. District court without jurisdiction to enlarge appeal period of this section. City of Kansas City v. Crestmoore Downs, Inc., 7 Kan. App. 2d 515, 516, 517, 518, 644 P.2d 494 (1982).

15. Evidence of biological hazard of high-voltage utility line did not relate to determination of compensation. Meinhardt v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 471, 472, 661 P.2d 820 (1983).

16. Proposed expert testimony concerning harmful biological effects of electricity from overhead power lines excluded. Meinhardt v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 8 Kan. App. 2d 471, 472, 661 P.2d 820 (1983).

17. Court rulings prior to appeal providing trial de novo not res judicata to reconsideration of issues at de novo trial. U.S.D. No. 464 v. Porter, 234 Kan. 690, 692, 693, 676 P.2d 84 (1984).

18. 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).

19. Before compensation question submitted to jury, court must find that taking was by eminent domain. Small v. Kemp, 240 Kan. 113, 116, 727 P.2d 904 (1986).

20. Method of determining compensation for condemnation of underground gas storage reservoirs examined. Union Gas System, Inc. v. Carnahan, 245 Kan. 80, 86, 91, 774 P.2d 962 (1989).

21. Method of determining compensation for condemnation examined. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs v. Kiser Living Trust, 250 Kan. 84, 86, 91, 825 P.2d 130 (1992).

22. Mailing copies of notice of appeal not jurisdictional to appeal; mailing notices responsibility of appealing party. City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, 253 Kan. 434, 438, 855 P.2d 956 (1993).

23. Under facts, misdescription of city's easements in eminent domain petition did not impair substantial rights of parties. Landau Investment Co. v. City of Overland Park, 261 Kan. 394, 406, 409, 930 P.2d 1065 (1997).

24. Statutory defects voiding condemnation proceeding may be raised before or after appeal of award. City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 Kan. 534, 542, 939 P.2d 926 (1997).

25. City's judgment reducing eminent domain payment to homeowner properly discharged in bankruptcy. City of Kansas City, Kan. v. Taylor, 213 B.R. 21, 22 (1997).

26. Failure to docket appeal from appraiser's award in condemnation action as a new civil action does not defeat subject matter jurisdiction. In re Condemnation of Land v. Stranger Valley Land Co., 280 Kan. 576, 123 P.3d 731 (2005).

27. Only issue in appeal from condemnation award is fair market value at the time of the taking. Miller v. Bartle, 283 Kan. 108, 115, 150 P.3d 1282 (2007).

28. 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).

29. 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).

30. Valuing of condemned land and appraisal methods discussed. Winkel v. Miller, 288 Kan. 455, 205 P.3d 688 (2009).

31. 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).

32. Party dissatisfied with appraisers' award under K.S.A. 12-527 has right to trial de novo on reasonableness of award. Rural Water District No. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 288 Kan. 811, 207 P.3d 1055 (2009).

33. Additional evidence may be taken upon appeal from appraisers' award. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).

34. 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).

35. Filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days is a jurisdictional requirement. Woods v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/KCK, 294 Kan. 292, 275 P.3d 46 (2012).