The case involved Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri challenging Kansas legislation, specifically Section 107(Z) of H.B. 2014, which prioritized Title X family planning subgrants to public entities, hospitals, or federally-qualified health centers, thereby excluding Planned Parenthood as a private nonprofit provider. The court addressed motions related to an existing injunction preventing enforcement of the state provision, including a motion to stay that injunction. It found that the state law creates eligibility criteria conflicting with federal Title X statutes and regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 300 and 42 C.F.R. § 59.3, which permit any public or nonprofit private entity to apply without additional restrictions on provider type. The core reasoning centered on Supremacy Clause principles, holding that the state statute cannot stand if it directly conflicts with or obstructs federal law governing the distribution of Title X funds administered through KDHE.
The case involved a breach of contract lawsuit originally filed by plaintiff Christenson Media Group in Kansas state court against defendants Lang Industries, which the defendants removed to federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that defendants failed to attach copies of process to the notice of removal, adequately plead diversity of citizenship, properly file the notice in state court, and timely submit an amended notice. The court denied the motions to remand, reasoning that the identified defects were procedural rather than jurisdictional, that removal statutes are to be applied with discretion to allow cures where subject matter jurisdiction exists, and that plaintiff had not shown any incurable bar to federal jurisdiction.
This case involves Theresa Beat, as executor of Darrel Dean Dyche's estate, seeking an estate tax refund from the United States based on the marital deduction, which required proving that she and Dyche were common-law spouses under Kansas law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the marriage issue and on related deductions for administrative expenses. The court granted the government's motion, finding no common-law marriage because the couple lacked a mutual present agreement to marry and did not hold themselves out as husband and wife to the community, despite a long relationship, shared rings, and public appearances together; it therefore denied Beat's motion for a marital deduction. On the expense claims, the court allowed deductions for accountants' fees, executor commissions, and interest but denied without prejudice the request for attorneys' fees due to unresolved factual questions about whether the marriage claim was made in good faith.
In Ortiz v. Rajala, the debtor appealed a bankruptcy court ruling that disallowed her claim of exemption for a life annuity received as part of a 1984 wrongful death settlement for her mother's death. The district court affirmed the decision, holding that the annuity did not qualify for exemption under K.S.A. § 60-2312(b), which incorporates 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). The court reasoned that this exemption applies only to retirement-related benefits intended to replace lost wages due to age, disability, or death of a wage earner, and Kansas had not adopted the separate wrongful death payment exemption in § 522(d)(11)(B). The annuity's origin in a tort settlement rather than employment-related earnings meant it fell outside the statute's scope, consistent with interpretations from other courts.
The case involved former Miami County jail inmate Chris Johnson suing deputy Dennis Roberts for allegedly using excessive force by tasering him during a confrontation over Johnson's refusal to comply with orders to remove items obstructing security camera views in his cell. Johnson had thrown his property box, resisted handing over his mattress and blanket, and shielded himself during the brief incident. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the force used was a reasonable response to Johnson's defiance of orders and physical resistance. The core reasoning applied qualified immunity principles, noting the absence of clearly established precedent showing the deputy's actions violated constitutional standards.
This case concerns a construction contract dispute in which The Law Company, Inc. sought summary judgment to limit damages sought by subcontractor Mohawk Construction and Supply Company in its counterclaim, primarily based on a 'no damages for delay' clause in their subcontract for work on a Cessna aircraft service center. The court reviewed the contract terms, project delays, and communications between the parties under Kansas law and the UCC. Applying summary judgment standards, it determined there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Law had waived or modified the exculpatory clause through affirmative representations that it would cover Mohawk's costs, inducing reliance. The opinion analyzes UCC § 2-209 on modifications without new consideration when reliance occurs and concludes that the evidence of consistent conduct beyond mere silence could support waiver, precluding full dismissal of the damages claims.
