Smith v. Morris

3 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Fitzpatrick

    224 Kan. 636 (Kan. 1978)   Cited 14 times
    In Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 224 Kan. 636, 585 P.2d 987 (1978), it was held that K.S.A. 60-260(b) does not permit a district court to grant relief from a judgment or order on its own initiative.

    The exception was first applied in Landscape Development Co. v. Kansas City P. L. Co., 197 Kan. 126, 415 P.2d 398 (1966), and has since been recognized in Mettee v. Urban Renewal Agency, 219 Kan. 165, 547 P.2d 356 (1976), and in Herbel v. Endres, 202 Kan. 733, 736, 451 P.2d 184 (1969). The Kansas Court of Appeals more recently had occasion to discuss this exception in Smith v. Morris, 2 Kan. App. 2d 59, 574 P.2d 568 (1978). The present appeal comes from the order reinstating the action under authority of K.S.A. 60-260.

  2. McArthur v. Glass King Mfg., Inc.

    711 P.2d 774 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    To hold otherwise would be to sanction piecemeal appeals in derogation of the statutory scheme conferring appellate power upon this court. See, e.g., Smith v. Morris, 2 Kan. App. 2d 59, 574 P.2d 568 (1978); Childress v. Childress Painting Co., 3 Kan. App. 2d 135, 140-42, 590 P.2d 1093 (Rees, J., dissenting), rev'd on other grounds 226 Kan. 251 (1979). Dismissed.

  3. In re Trotter

    3 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)

    The State further argues that in any event, Trotter waived a recording of the trial proceedings, K.S.A. 60-259(A ) provides the exclusive jurisdictional bases upon which a trial court may grant a new trial, and an order granting a new trial may be reviewed on appeal only when the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Smith v. Morris, 2 Kan.App.2d 59, 574 P.2d 568 (1978).        Under K.S.A. 60-259(A ), a new trial may be granted for one of the following grounds: