Urban Renewal Agency v. Tate
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Schroeder, J.:
This is an appeal in a condemnation action.
The underlying question is whether the trial court erred in giving an instruction to the jury which the appellant alleges to be a directed verdict for the landowner.
In the year 1958 the Urban Renewal Agency of the Wichita, Kansas, Metropolitan Area (appellant) by and through its agents and employees, informed Elizabeth Tate (appellee), the landowner herein, that it was going to take her property as a part of an urban renewal project. It was not, however, until December, 1961, when appraisers for…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Central Branch Union Pacific Railroad v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Steck v. City of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1956
- Mai v. City of Garden CitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1954
- Randle v. Kansas Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Kansas · 1957
- Cline v. Kansas Gas & Electric CompanySupreme Court of Kansas · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Fox v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- City of Wichita v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
- State Highway Commission v. LeeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1971
- Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLCSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007
- Humphries v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.