60-457.
Preliminary examination for non-expert witness; pre-trial hearing for expert witness.
(a) If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the judge may require that a witness before testifying in terms of opinion or inference be first examined concerning the facts or data upon which the opinion or inference is founded.
(b) If a witness is testifying as an expert, upon motion of a party, the court may hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether the witness qualifies as an expert and whether the witness's testimony satisfies the requirements of subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-456, and amendments thereto. The court shall allow sufficient time for a hearing. The court shall rule on the qualifications of the witness to testify as an expert and whether or not the testimony satisfies the requirements of subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-456, and amendments thereto. Such hearing and ruling shall be completed no later than the final pretrial conference contemplated under subsection (d) of K.S.A. 60-216, and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-457; L. 2014, ch. 84, § 3; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Plains Transp. of Kansas, Inc. v. King, 578 P.2d 1095 (Kan. 1978).
“) In the instant case both Hill and Byers set forth their credentials and were subjected to further cross-examination before they were allowed to express any opinion on the possible cause of the fire.”
State v. Strauch, 718 P.2d 613 (Kan. 1986).
“K.S.A. 60-457, 458.” Here, the defendant argues Dr.”
State v. Brown, 486 P.3d 624 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Goodman's report in mid- February 2018, it seems that Falk did not provide the State a copy of Dr.”
State v. Hatfield, 484 P.3d 891 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-457(b). The purpose of such a hearing is "to determine whether [a] witness qualifies as an expert and whether the witness's testimony satisfies the requirements" of K.”
Knowles v. Burlington N. R.R., 856 P.2d 1352 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“Reuber’s opinion is founded pursuant to K.S.A. 60-457. Furthei’more, the trial court did not strike plaintiff’s experts.”
Ziegler v. Crofoot, 516 P.2d 954 (Kan. 1973).
“60-457 this court held when an expert is not sufficiently advised of relevant and material matters prerequisite to his testimony on the subject the trial judge may first require him to be further examined concerning data upon which the opinion will be founded. In Howard v.”
Paczkowski v. Dawson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “60-457(b) require a full evidentiary hearing with testimonial evidence from the parties' proposed expert before the district court can rule on the admissibility of their 6 testimony for trial purposes. Thus, Paczkowski claims, the district court erred in denying the motion to…”
State v. Buchhorn (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Indeed, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-457(b) recognizes the importance of timing in this area by allowing the court to hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert and whether the witness' testimony satisfies the requirements of K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-457(b) — 4 cases
State v. Brown, 486 P.3d 624 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Goodman's report in mid- February 2018, it seems that Falk did not provide the State a copy of Dr.”
State v. Hatfield, 484 P.3d 891 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-457(b). The purpose of such a hearing is "to determine whether [a] witness qualifies as an expert and whether the witness's testimony satisfies the requirements" of K.”
Paczkowski v. Dawson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“60-457(b) require a full evidentiary hearing with testimonial evidence from the parties' proposed expert before the district court can rule on the admissibility of their 6 testimony for trial purposes. Thus, Paczkowski claims, the district court erred in denying the motion to…”
State v. Buchhorn (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Indeed, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-457(b) recognizes the importance of timing in this area by allowing the court to hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert and whether the witness' testimony satisfies the requirements of K.”
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.