Legal Opinion

Harsch v. Miller

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 13, 2009No. 100,149PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Nuss, J.:

This eminent domain controversy arises out of Doyle and Lea Harsches’ efforts to appeal a district court’s denial of their motion to stay proceedings. After the denial, the Harsches and their counsel refused to participate in a scheduled jury trial, claiming that their fihng of a docketing statement with the clerk of the appellate courts deprived the district court of jurisdiction. That court disagreed. When the Harsches and counsel failed to appear for trial, the district court dismissed the action for lack of prosecution, held counsel in…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. State Ex Rel. Stovall v. MeneleySupreme Court of Kansas · 2001

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2013
  2. Landmark National Bank v. KeslerSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  3. Miami County Board of Commissioners v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011
  4. Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance v. SvatySupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
  5. State v. BerrethSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API