26-504.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Harsch v. Miller, 200 P.3d 467 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 4× “The Harsches appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 26-504 (direct appeal to Supreme Court of any final order under the Eminent Domain Procedure Act [EDPA], K.”
– GFTLenexa, LLC v. City of Lenexa –, 453 P.3d 304 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 26-504 governs appeals in eminent domain cases and allows appeals directly to the Supreme Court when the plaintiff has power of eminent domain.”
Schuck v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 180 P.3d 571 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 4× “26-504 provides the procedure for an eminent domain action: *25 “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,…”
City of Wichita v. Denton, 294 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 3× “We have jurisdiction to review Clear Channel’s appeal to this court pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 26-504. Facts In 2002, the City filed a petition under the Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act (EDPA), K.”
Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 161 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 2× “26-508, which provides: "If the plaintiff, or any defendant, is dissatisfied with the award of the appraisers, such party, within 30 days after the filing of the appraisers' report, may appeal from the award by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the district…”
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 2× “26-501); and (c) if these determinations are made, the court appoints three appraisers (K.S.A.2008 Supp. 26-504), and instructs them, among other things, that "they are officers of the court and not representatives of the plaintiff or any other party.”
Young Partners, LLC v. Bd. of Educ., 160 P.3d 830 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 3× “K.S.A. 26-504 states that in any action for eminent domain initiated by the State or an authorized state agency, the district court is required to malee two findings: “(1) The plaintiff has the power of eminent domain; and (2) the taking is necessary to the lawful corporate…”
City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co., 112 P.3d 125 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Our jurisdiction arises under K.S.A. 26-504, which allows direct appeals to the Supreme Court from any final order in an eminent domain proceeding.”
Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 238 P.3d 731 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 2× “26-501 (proceedings shall be brought in district court of county where land is situated); K.S.A.2009 Supp. 26-504 (vesting district court with power to appoint appraisers after entertaining suggestions *743 from any party).”
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.