kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

5-26 Appellate Jurisdiction
2013
Kan. 280, 200 P.3d 467 (2009); Flores Rentals v. Flores, 283 Kan. 476, 491,
153 P.3d 523 (2007). However, the court recently found application
of this doctrine proper in the unique factual circumstances presented
by an appeal by the Cherokee Nation from an order granting a petition
to deviate from the adoptive placement preferences set forth in the
Indian Child Welfare Act. In re T.S.W., 294 Kan. 423, 432-35, 276
P.3d 133 (2012). Nevertheless, the T.S.W. court emphasized it will
continue to apply this narrow doctrine sparingly to a small class of
collateral rulings. 294 Kan. at 434.
Two years earlier, in Svaty, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected
application of the doctrine to a collateral discovery ruling challenged
by a non-party. 291 Kan. at 616. In so holding, it found guidance in
the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mohawk Industries,
Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 130 S. Ct. 599, 605, 175 L. Ed. 2d 458
(2009), where the Court rejected application of the doctrine to an order
concluding that the defendant had waived its attorney-client privilege
in another suit. The Svaty court noted that it generally has followed
the United States Supreme Court’s application of the collateral order
doctrine and held the doctrine did not apply even though the appellant
was not a party to the litigation below because it could seek a remedy
through mandamus. 291 Kan. at 616.
▪
Discovery and Other Pretrial Motions
The denial of a motion to intervene is a final, appealable order. State
ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 412, Syl. 1, 415,
856 P.2d 151 (1993); In re S.C., 32 Kan. App. 2d 514, 516, 85 P.3d 224
(2004); In re Marriage of Osborne, 21 Kan. App. 2d 374, Syl. 1, 901 P.2d
12 (1995).
As a general rule, discovery orders and sanctions for violations
concerning parties to the proceedings are not final, appealable orders.
Reed v. Hess, 239 Kan. 46, Syl. 3, 716 P.2d 555 (1986). This is true
even where the appellant was not a party to the proceedings below,
at least if the district court did not impose sanctions or a penalty on
appellant. Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 616, 244
P.3d 642 (2010).
▪
Dispositive Motions
An order denying a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable order.
Donaldson v. State Highway Commission, 189 Kan. 483, Syl. 2, 485, 370
P.2d 83 (1962).