Judge Harth of 6th judicial district to sit with Kansas Supreme Court March 1

TOPEKA — Chief Judge Amy Harth of the 6th judicial district has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's 9 a.m. docket Tuesday, March 1.

The 6th judicial district includes Bourbon, Linn and Miami counties.

After hearing oral arguments, Harth will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.

"I am so glad Chief Judge Harth is taking time from her duties in the 6th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court," said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. "It's a great help to our court and we look forward to her contributions deliberating this case."

Harth has been a district court judge since 2004 and has presided over all types of cases.

"Our Supreme Court has a tremendous responsibility to the people of Kansas and I am honored to be appointed to help decide this important matter," Harth said. "I look forward to the experience of sitting with the court."

Before becoming a judge, Harth worked as a prosecutor in Miami County and as a public defender. She is a 1994 graduate of Washburn University School of Law.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org.

The case Harth will hear is the first one scheduled on the Supreme Court's 9 a.m. docket Tuesday, March 1:

Appeal No. 110,656: Byron T. Wiechman v. Mark Huddleston

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Wiechman filed a petition with the district court alleging personal injuries stemming from a car accident. In accordance with local practice, Wiechman notified the district court that the case had been settled and would not proceed. The district court then entered an administrative order dismissing the case. The proposed settlement was not completed and Wiechman never received a settlement check. Wiechman filed a motion to set aside the court's order of dismissal and for reinstatement of his personal injury case. The district court granted Wiechman's motion to set aside the dismissal over Huddleston's objection. Huddleston sought an interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a non-final order. The court further found that since Huddleston did not take steps to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal, the appeal had to be dismissed. The Supreme Court granted Huddleston's petition for review. Issues on review are whether the appellate panel's decision: 1) directly conflicts with controlling Kansas Supreme Court cases that recognize the jurisdictional exception; 2) improperly expanded this court's opinion in the Park City case and errantly applied that analysis to this case; and, 3) directly conflicts with the decision of another appellate panel that applied the jurisdictional exception after the Park City case was decided.