20-3017.
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.
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Adoption of A.A.T., 196 P.3d 1180 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 2× “60-260(b) in this appeal, transferred to this court from our Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017 and Supreme Court Rule 8.02 (2007 Kan.”
South v. McCarter, 119 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ application to take a civil interlocutory appeal, and the case was transferred to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. On September 3, 2001, plaintiffs Linda and John South entered into a “Rental Agreement for Manufactured Home…”
– GFTLenexa, LLC v. City of Lenexa –, 453 P.3d 304 (Kan. 2019).
“3d 1211 (2010) (appeal transferred from Court of Appeals on appellants' motion to transfer under K.S.A. 20-3017); Garrett v. City of Topeka, 259 Kan.”
N. Nat. Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., 296 P.3d 1106 (Kan. 2013).
“On May 6, 2010, Northern docketed the appeal *915 in the Court of Appeals and moved to transfer the appeal to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. On June 2, 2010, FERC issued an order (the FERC Order) authorizing Northern to expand the Field by 12,320 acres.”
State v. Gonzalez, 234 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2010).
“We transferred the appeal from the Court of Appeals on McKinnon’s motion pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. Factual and Procedural Background In early 2007, McKinnon was appointed to represent defendant Gonzalez on a charge of first-degree murder.”
Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 1063 (Kan. 1986).
· cites it 2× “20-3018(c) and K.S.A. 20-3017. Proceedings before the KCC In 1979, when the problem of rapidly increasing construction costs of Wolf Creek became evident, a docket was created by the KCC for the purpose of initiating a general investigation of the projected costs so that data…”
Smith v. Kansas Gas Serv. Co., 169 P.3d 1052 (Kan. 2007).
“The case was transferred to this court on the parties’ mo *38 tions pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. This court granted a joint motion to dismiss Western Resources’ cross-appeal as moot, given that none of the parties sought to disturb its favorable judgment.”
Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017, this court granted Canaan’s motion to transfer the case from the Court of Appeals.”
Genesis Health Club, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 181 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2008).
“We transferred the case from the Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. The parties present a number of issues on appeal, which we reduce as follows: 1.”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Stonewall Ins., 71 P.3d 1097 (Kan. 2003).
“Insurers’ motion for transfer to this court was granted pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3017. The district court’s decisions that, taken together, constitute the final declaratory judgment in this case are on choice of law, which were made on November 3,1999, March 12,1999, and December…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.