Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc.
301 Kan. 916
Kan.2015Background
- Neighbor timely appealed an appraisers’ award in an eminent domain proceeding under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 26-508.
- The district court dismissed Neighbor’s first appeal without prejudice, and Neighbor later filed a second appeal relying on K.S.A. 60-518 (saving statute).
- Westar argued 60-518 does not apply to an appraisers’ award appeal under 26-508 and the second appeal was untimely.
- The district court dismissed the second appeal with prejudice; the court of appeals analyzed whether EDPA and civil procedure time limits harmonize.
- The court held 26-508 requires the eminent domain appeal to proceed as a civil action, making the saving statute applicable to the appeal.
- The decision rejects prior precedents (Ramsel, Miller) and clarifies the EDPA’s interaction with Article 5 time limits; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60-518 saves the second appeal. | Neighbor | ||
| 60-518 applies to saving untimely actions in civil actions, including EDPA appeals. | Westar | ||
| 26-508 preempts 60-518 for pretrial EDPA proceedings; second appeal cannot be saved. | Yes; saving statute applies to EDPA appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elwood-Gladden Drainage Dist. v. Ramsel, 206 Kan. 75 (1970) (pre-EDPA view on pleadings vs. presentation of facts)
- City of Wellington v. Miller, 200 Kan. 651 (1968) (statutory interpretation regarding EDPA procedures)
- Landau Investment Co. v. City of Overland Park, 261 Kan. 394 (1997) (nature of EDPA and application of civil procedure rules)
- Howard v. State Highway Comm’n, 181 Kan. 226 (1957) (saving statute discussion dicta not controlling here)
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906 (2013) (read statutes in pari materia to harmonize provisions)
- State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903 (2014) (parsimony in statutory interpretation; plain language governs)
- In re Estate of Strader, 301 Kan. 50 (2014) (unlimited review standard for statutory interpretation)
- Vontress v. State, 299 Kan. 607 (2014) (specific statute controls over general when overlapping)