John Thomas Marten

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.

healthcarefederal power

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.

procedure

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.

taxesfamily law

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

civil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a prospective class action by royalty owners of natural gas wells in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma against XTO Energy, Inc., alleging inadequate royalty payments due to the lessee's failure to bear all costs of placing gas in marketable condition under implied lease covenants. The court granted XTO's motions to dismiss portions of the claims and for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery time. The core reasoning was that the three states recognize a general lessee obligation to render gas marketable but differ on allocation of transportation expenses and whether marketability is a question of law or fact, and that prior settled class actions in Oklahoma and Colorado barred certain claims via release and res judicata.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Lafarge North America suing Homeland Ready-Mix and its officers Robert and Dennis O’Brien for breach of guaranty, breach of a promissory note, and liability on dishonored checks. Dennis O’Brien moved to dismiss the claim against him personally on the checks, contending that Kansas UCC K.S.A. § 84-3-402(c) shields him from liability because the checks were signed in his representative capacity on the company's account. The court granted the motion to dismiss Count 3, ruling that the UCC provision bars personal liability under the worthless check statute K.S.A. 60-2610 when an authorized representative signs checks that identify the corporate account holder. The reasoning centered on harmonizing the statutes by construing the more specific UCC rule as providing immunity to the signer, consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions and the text stating the signer is 'not liable on the check.'

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the United States brought an in rem forfeiture action against assets including approximately twenty Mexican gold coins, alleging they were involved in money laundering or were proceeds of fraud. Thomas Waterhouse filed a claim asserting an interest in the properties for himself and others, but the claim was not signed under penalty of perjury, did not explain his authority to represent the others, failed to assert a direct ownership interest, and was not followed by a timely answer to the complaint. The court granted the government's uncontested motion to strike the claim, holding that Waterhouse lacked statutory standing due to noncompliance with Supplemental Rule G(5) and had no standing as a general unsecured creditor to contest the forfeiture of specific property.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved Wichita police officers stopping Jose Maldonado's pickup truck after observing a slight lane drift, which they attributed partly to the vehicle's Texas license plates suggesting possible drug smuggling from Mexico. The officers questioned Maldonado, obtained his consent to search, and discovered over 500 grams of methamphetamine and cocaine using drug dogs. The court granted Maldonado's motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the initial traffic stop lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion because the lane change did not violate Kansas law (K.S.A. 8-1522) by occurring unsafely, and was instead based on an improper motive. The court further found that the consent to search was tainted by the illegal stop due to the lack of temporal separation or intervening circumstances under the Brown v. Illinois factors.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved three sixth-grade students at St. Anne Catholic School and their parents who sued the school and related defendants under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that an English-only rule implemented early in the 2007-2008 school year amounted to intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, created a hostile educational environment, and resulted in retaliation. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court allowed only the hostile environment claims to proceed to trial while dismissing the intentional discrimination and retaliation claims, ruling that parents could sue only as next friends for their children and that the only proper defendants were the diocese and the principal in her official capacity. The court determined that defendants articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the dismissed claims, which plaintiffs did not show to be pretextual, but found sufficient evidence on the hostile environment claim to require a trial. The opinion noted that the school received federal funds through the National School Lunch Program, making Title VI applicable.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involves a Kansas LLC that purchased a modular diner structure from a Georgia corporation under a sales contract, making several installment payments totaling over $500,000. After issues arose with the transaction, including apparent alterations to the diner design and the seller's insolvency, the buyer sued the seller's corporate officer (Diane Bernstein) personally for breach of contract and related claims, seeking to hold her liable for the corporate debts. The court treated the officer's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and granted it. The core reasoning was that Kansas law (K.S.A. 17-7101(b)) bars direct suits by creditors against corporate officers or directors for corporate obligations until a judgment is first obtained against the corporation itself and execution is returned unsatisfied, with no applicable exceptions such as fraud claims against the officer. The court rejected arguments that unique circumstances or the buyer's status as sole creditor altered this requirement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Koch Industries sued the United States seeking a determination that it could report income from a New Mexico highway expansion project using the percentage-of-completion method under IRC §460. The government argued that the contract did not qualify because its long-term obligations were merely warranties. The court granted summary judgment to Koch, finding that the agreement imposed mandatory, separately negotiated construction and rehabilitation duties over twenty years that were certain to require substantial future expenditures. The core reasoning was that the substance of the contract, rather than its label, created long-term construction obligations whose timing and amount were uncertain, which directly matched the statutory purpose of §460 to align income recognition with anticipated expenses.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this case, pro se plaintiff Lisa Graham, an inmate at the Topeka Correctional Facility, brought a § 1983 action against prison health care providers alleging violations of her constitutional rights, including privacy during a strip search by male officers, placement in administrative segregation during a mental health crisis, excessive force causing a wrist injury, and denial of medical equipment, all stemming from events on June 10, 2005, when she was placed on crisis level status after threatening violence. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after deeming the defendants' uncontroverted facts admitted due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with local rules, and it found no genuine issues of material fact or legal basis for the claims under standards such as those for equal protection or Eighth Amendment violations. The court also denied the plaintiff's related motions for certification, revision, summary judgment, and default judgment as moot or improper. The ruling dismissed all remaining claims and entered final judgment for the defendants.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a loan dispute in which Brooke Credit sued Buckeye Insurance for breaching obligations under financing for the purchase of insurance agencies, prompting Buckeye to assert counterclaims against related entity Brooke Franchise for breach of contract, breach of good faith, fraudulent inducement, and quantum meruit. The court granted Brooke Franchise's motion to compel arbitration of the counterclaims and stayed the action pending arbitration. It reasoned that the Assignment and Franchise Agreements contained broad arbitration provisions covering all disputes arising from or relating to them, and that under the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent such as Prima Paint, allegations of fraud in the inducement of the contracts generally (rather than the arbitration clauses specifically) must be resolved by the arbitrator.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Wallace v. Microsoft Corp., a former employee sued his employer in state court alleging retaliatory discharge, breach of contract, outrage, and violations of the FMLA and other statutes after he was injured on a public sidewalk, returned to work with medical restrictions that were not accommodated, was placed on unpaid leave, and was terminated. The defendant removed the case to federal court, prompting the plaintiff to move for remand on grounds that removal was untimely following service of the petition, while the defendant moved to dismiss certain claims including the FMLA count. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) did not begin until proper service of both the petition and summons, which had not occurred despite Kansas's shift to a substantial-compliance standard for service. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing the FMLA interference claim to proceed because the plaintiff might still prove harm from the employer's failure to provide required notice even if certain regulations were questionable.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Sommerville v. Astrue, the plaintiff had previously prevailed in a Social Security disability benefits case, securing a remand and award of benefits from March 1996, and now sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner agreed that fees were warranted but objected to the requested amount of $10,881.35 for 67.86 hours of work, arguing that the time exceeded typical amounts for such cases and was excessive given the attorney's experience. The court granted the full fee request, finding the hours reasonable because the administrative record exceeded 1,300 pages and was not a routine case, and because the Commissioner failed to identify any specific portions of the work as unnecessary or unreasonable.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a ruling that a debtor's personal injury claim against a third-party tortfeasor had been assigned by operation of law to her employer, TransAm Trucking, under Kansas workers' compensation statutes. The debtor was injured in a work-related accident in 2003, received workers' compensation benefits from TransAm, and was named as a defendant in an interpleader action filed within one year, but she took no affirmative steps to pursue her claim for over a year. The bankruptcy court held that the claim passed to TransAm because the debtor failed to institute an action within the statutory one-year period under K.S.A. 44-504(c), and the district court affirmed, finding that merely being named in the suit without responding did not constitute prosecuting the claim. The court also denied TransAm's request for costs on appeal.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Hutton v. Deutsche Bank AG, plaintiffs Hutton and his company sued Deutsche Bank, Clarion Capital, Société Générale, and related parties after following advice to implement a foreign currency market-linked deposit tax strategy in 2001, which led to investment losses, IRS and state audits, and penalties for what authorities later deemed an unregistered tax shelter. The plaintiffs asserted claims including RICO violations, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. It applied New York substantive law per the account agreement but Kansas statutes of limitations, finding the two- and three-year periods had expired because the claims accrued upon the plaintiffs' discovery of their injuries from fees, losses, and audits rather than awaiting final tax resolution; the court also rejected arguments that ongoing tax proceedings tolled or delayed the limitations period.

business & regulatorytaxesprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Gene Eatinger filed a class action in Kansas state court alleging that BP America Production Company underpaid royalties to him and other owners due to self-dealing. BP removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (with a $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement) and diversity jurisdiction (with a $75,000 requirement). Eatinger moved to remand, arguing that BP had not sufficiently proven the amounts in controversy and that his petition's statement that damages "may" fall below the thresholds was adequate to keep the case in state court. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the plaintiff's ambiguous language and refusal to stipulate to damages below the jurisdictional limits failed to defeat federal jurisdiction, and that BP's percentage-based calculations from royalty payment data met its burden.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power