unique circumstances doctrine in Kansas

2016The Park City court recognized that Kansas courts had been following the United States Supreme Court’s lead when it adopted the unique circumstances doctrine, but this court further noted that the United States Supreme Court had overruled that doctrine after concluding Congress had exercised its constitutional authority to limit the appellate courts’ jurisdiction and that appellate courts could not create equitable exceptions to those legitimate statutory requirements. 293 Kan. at 117 (citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 , 127 S. Ct. 2360 , 168 L.

2016The Park City court recognized that Kansas courts had been following the United States Supreme Court’s lead when it adopted the unique circumstances doctrine, but this court further noted that the United States Supreme Court had overruled that doctrine after concluding Congress had exercised its constitutional authority to limit the appellate courts’ jurisdiction and that appellate courts could not create equitable exceptions to those legitimate statutory requirements. 293 Kan. at 117 (citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 , 127 S. Ct. 2360 , 168 L.

2011The Kansas Supreme Court reached a similar result and applied the unique circumstances doctrine to save an untimely appeal in Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 243 Kan. 291, 301 , 758 P.2d 206 (1988).

2011The Kansas Supreme Court reached a similar result and applied the unique circumstances doctrine to save an untimely appeal in Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 243 Kan. 291, 301 , 758 P.2d 206 (1988).

2011The Schroeder court held that the reasoning in Harris and in Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1982) (applying the unique circumstances doctrine to save an appeal where the district court improperly granted an extension of *115 time to file a posttrial motion), applied.

2009Our Supreme Court, however, held that the reasoning found in Harris and in Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1982) (applying the unique circumstances doctrine to save an appeal where the trial court improperly granted an extension of time to file a posttrial motion), should be applied to save the appellants’ appeal and, therefore, remanded the case to this court for a determination on the merits. 242 Kan. at 712-14 .

2011The United States Supreme Court developed the unique circumstances doctrine in Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S. Ct. 283 , 9 L.

2011The United States Supreme Court developed the unique circumstances doctrine in Harris Truck Lines v. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S. Ct. 283 , 9 L.

2011Two years later, the Supreme Court applied the unique circumstances doctrine again in Thompson v. I.N.S., 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S. *114 Ct. 397, 11 L.

2011The Court again focused on the fact that the appellant relied on tire district court’s action, which purportedly tolled or extended the time period for filing a notice of appeal. 375 U.S. at 387 . *994 The Kansas Supreme Court first embraced the unique circumstances doctrine in Schroeder v. Urban, 242 Kan. 710 , 750 P.2d 405 (1988).

2009This court reversed, applying the unique circumstances doctrine in Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, 36 Kan.

2008A panel of this court reversed the district court’s dismissal, applying the unique circumstances doctrine in Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, 36 Kan.

1997The [United States] Supreme Court seems to have concluded that a party ought not be denied an opportunity to appeal because ofhis failure to file a timely appeal when that failure resulted from reliance on action taken by the district court that generated a reasonable belief that an appeal could be initiated at a later date.” The District of Columbia Court of Appeals clearly and concisely explained the unique circumstances doctrine in Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. Orr, 716 F.2d 1403 , 1406 n.25 (D.C.

1997The [United States] Supreme Court seems to have concluded that a party ought not be denied an opportunity to appeal because of his failure to file a timely appeal when that failure resulted from reliance on action taken by the district court that generated a reasonable belief that an appeal could be initiated at a later date." The District of Columbia Court of Appeals clearly and concisely explained the unique circumstances doctrine in Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. Orr, 716 F.2d 1403 , 1406 n.25 (D.C.

2011Board of Sedgwick County Comm’rs, 41 Kan.

2011App. 2d 646, 658 , 204 P.3d 648 (2009), aff'd 293 Kan. 107 , 260 P.3d 387 (2011). (“Despite its explicit recognition of Bowles’ holding, the Finley court, surprisingly, proceeded to consider the application of the unique circumstances doctrine.”); Rowland v. Barb, 40 Kan.

2011App. 2d 646, 658 , 204 P.3d 648 (2009), aff'd 293 Kan. 107 , 260 P.3d 387 (2011). (“Despite its explicit recognition of Bowles’ holding, the Finley court, surprisingly, proceeded to consider the application of the unique circumstances doctrine.”); Rowland v. Barb, 40 Kan.

2011App. 2d 493, 501 , 193 P.3d 499 (2008) (“It appears the Finley court interpreted Bowles to permit application of the unique circumstances doctrine only if equitable exceptions justify its application — when in fact, Bowles ruled that courts have no authority to apply the doctrine To create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.’ [Citation omitted.]”); Le v. Joslin, 41 Kan.

1988Co. v. Kemp, 239 Kan. 430 , 721 P.2d 278 (1986), we considered, but found inapplicable under the facts of that case, the unique circumstances doctrine.

1988Co. v. Kemp, 239 Kan. 430 , 721 P.2d 278 (1986), we considered, but found inapplicable under the facts of that case, the unique circumstances doctrine.

2024Troy makes passing reference to the district court's discussion of the unique circumstances doctrine and our Supreme Court's ruling in In re Estate of Oroke, 310 Kan. 305 , 317, 445 P.3d 742 (2019), applying the doctrine to save a cause of action from being dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

2024Even though the unique circumstances doctrine had been eliminated in Kansas, we found Hooks could still prevail because appellate courts, in limited circumstances, may "exercise jurisdiction despite an untimely notice of appeal." Hooks, 312 Kan. at 606 (citing Albright v. State, 292 Kan. 193, 198 , 251 P.3d 52 [2011]).

2024Even though the unique circumstances doctrine had been eliminated in Kansas, we found Hooks could still prevail because appellate courts, in limited circumstances, may "exercise jurisdiction despite an untimely notice of appeal." Hooks, 312 Kan. at 606 (citing Albright v. State, 292 Kan. 193, 198 , 251 P.3d 52 [2011]).

2022Our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the illegitimacy of the doctrine in State v. Hook, 312 Kan. 604 , 606, 478 P.3d 773 (2021).

2021Like similar cases before his, Mr. Hooks' appeal should be allowed under the unique circumstances doctrine." 3 ANALYSIS "[T]he right to appeal is entirely statutory and [] the limits of our jurisdiction are imposed by the legislature." Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 287 , 200 P.3d 467 (2009).

2021Like similar cases before his, Mr. Hooks' appeal should be allowed under the unique circumstances doctrine." 3 ANALYSIS "[T]he right to appeal is entirely statutory and [] the limits of our jurisdiction are imposed by the legislature." Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 287 , 200 P.3d 467 (2009).

2019App. 2d 987 , 998-99, 260 P.3d 1210 (2011), rev. denied 293 Kan. 1107 (2012); see Huffman v. Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. , No. 113,383, 2016 WL 3655903 , at *10 (Kan.

2019Caselaw has recognized "the unique circumstances doctrine is still viable, in the appropriate situation, to prevent a cause of action from being barred by the statute of limitations." Mangus v. Stump , 45 Kan.

1999No. 383, 235 Kan. 793 , 684 P.2d 424 (1984), to support his position that, although the Workers Compensation Act has been held to be complete in itself and cannot be supplemented by the procedural statutes in Chapter 60 of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, United States and Kansas constitutional due process considerations are applicable.

1999No. 383, 235 Kan. 793 , 684 P.2d 424 (1984), to support his position that, although the Workers Compensation Act has been held to be complete in itself and cannot be supplemented by the procedural statutes in Chapter 60 of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, United States and Kansas constitutional due process considerations are applicable.

1999Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 998 F. Supp. 1221 (D.

1997In addressing the doctrine of unique circumstances in Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 , 103 L.

1997In addressing the doctrine of unique circumstances in Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 , 103 L.

1997It then stated that the unique circumstances doctrine set out in Schroeder applied only to untimely appeals and required for its application reliance by the party on judicial action rather than on a clerical mistake by a clerk of the district court. 15 Kan.

1997It then stated that the unique circumstances doctrine set out in Schroeder applied only to untimely appeals and required for its application reliance by the party on judicial action rather than on a clerical mistake by a clerk of the district court. 15 Kan.

1988Our original opinion in Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 239 Kan. 279 , was a lengthy opinion involving complex issues on the merits.

1988Our original opinion in Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 239 Kan. 279 , was a lengthy opinion involving complex issues on the merits.