59-2402.
District magistrate judges; certification of questions outside judge's jurisdiction.
In any proceeding pending in the district court before a district magistrate judge, when it appears that a decision upon any question of which such judge does not have jurisdiction is necessary to a full determination of the proceeding, such question shall be submitted to the chief judge. The chief judge may assign the entire case to a district judge or may assign just the question to a district judge for determination, after which the case may be reassigned to the district magistrate judge.
History:
L. 1939, ch. 180, § 270; L. 1976, ch. 242, § 56; L. 1977, ch. 112, § 19; L. 1986, ch. 115, § 84; L. 1999, ch. 57, § 48; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1946–1974 · leading case:
Crump v. Crump, 166 P.2d 684 (Kan. 1946).
Crump v. Crump, 166 P.2d 684 (Kan. 1946).
· cites it 2× “Section 59-2402 reads as follows: “In any proceeding pending in the probate court when it appears that a decision upon any question of which the probate court does not have jurisdiction is necessary to a full determination of the proceeding, such question shall be certified by…”
Kos v. Patrons State Bank & Trust Co., 493 P.2d 555 (Kan. 1972).
“The probate court was never requested to certify the appellant’s petition to the district court because it was without jurisdiction under the provisions of K.S.A. 59-2402. In the Slaven case the jurisdiction of the probate court was challenged, and it thereupon certified the…”
Est. of Ingram v. Ingalls, 510 P.2d 597 (Kan. 1973).
“Thereafter, upon Eunice's request, the proceeding as to the stock *223 ownership was certified by the probate court to the district court for decision, pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2402. In district court Eunice proposed two theories.”
Nichols v. Marshall, 491 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1974).
“K.S.A. 59-2402 (a) and (b). Prior to the enactment of the particular statute authorizing such transfer, a claim was first tried in the probate court, with the unsuccessful party then having the right to a trial de novo in the district court.”
Sherk v. Sherk, 310 P.2d 899 (Kan. 1957).
· cites it 2× “From the record before us it does not appear that either of the parties to this action at any time ever requested the probate court to certify or transfer this matter to the district court on the question of jurisdiction as provided by Section 59-2402 of the Code. Under these…”
Nichols v. Marshall, 491 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1974).
“K.S.A. 59-2402 (a) and (b). Prior to the enactment of the particular statute authorizing such transfer, a claim was first tried in the probate court, with the unsuccessful party then having the right to a trial de novo in the district court.”
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.