The ACLU sued Kansas officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to block enforcement of a 2011 statute (H.B. 2075) that bars insurance companies from covering elective abortions in standard health policies and requires any such coverage to be purchased via a separate rider with actuarially sound premiums. The suit alleged violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction. After a magistrate recommended denial for lack of evidence of irreparable harm, the district court conducted de novo review, applied the four-factor test for preliminary relief (likelihood of success, irreparable injury, balance of harms, and public interest), noted that the requested injunction would alter the status quo, and examined precedents such as Roe, Casey, and Maher v. Roe on state authority to regulate abortion funding and insurance. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required clear showing on the merits or irreparable harm and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Kisor sued Advantage 2000 Consultants (A2K) under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and Kansas Credit Services Organization Act, alleging improper practices in A2K's role providing Social Security representation and recouping overpayments from his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan issued by LINA/CIGNA. The court converted A2K's motion for judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment and granted it, holding that ERISA preempts the state-law claims because they relate to the enforcement of the plan's overpayment recoupment provisions, which serve ERISA's goal of protecting the economic stability of benefit plans for all participants. The court distinguished precedent allowing certain third-party state claims and denied Kisor's motion to strike but granted leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim under ERISA section 502.
This case was a civil forfeiture action in which the United States sought to seize $21,055 in currency from claimant Timothy Yennemann after it was found during a commercial truck inspection in Kansas. The government contended the money was connected to drug trafficking and thus forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), citing a positive alert by a drug-sniffing dog and the claimant's low reported income with no tax returns filed in recent years. Yennemann claimed the cash was lawfully obtained and that he was an innocent owner. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, concluding that the totality of the evidence—including the large amount of cash, the dog alert, and insufficient legitimate income sources—established by a preponderance that the currency was proceeds of or intended for use in violating the Controlled Substances Act.
This case involves Northern Natural Gas Company's effort to confirm its authority to condemn property interests in the Viola and Simpson formations under approximately 9,117 acres in Pratt and Kingman Counties, Kansas, to expand its Cunningham Storage Field. Northern relied on a June 2010 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by FERC under the Natural Gas Act, which authorized the boundary expansion and acquisition of necessary rights. Landowner defendants opposed the motion, raising objections including Northern's diligence in identifying affected owners and the scope of interests sought. The court granted Northern's motion to confirm condemnation authority, finding that the FERC certificate provided the legal basis for eminent domain, that Northern had complied with procedural requirements such as notice and good-faith efforts to acquire interests voluntarily, and that the defendants' objections lacked merit under applicable rules and precedents.
The case involves Northern Natural Gas seeking a preliminary injunction to halt L.D. Drilling and other defendants from operating gas wells in an expansion area adjacent to Northern's Cunningham Storage Field, on the grounds that the wells constitute a nuisance by producing migrated storage gas. The court granted the injunction, subject to conditions, after a hearing on the motion. Evidence presented, including gas composition analysis, seismic data, pressure records, and prior FERC findings, indicated that the defendants' wells were producing or had produced storage gas that migrated from the certified storage field. The pending related condemnation action by Northern to acquire property rights in the expansion area was noted as a significant factor in evaluating the injunction request under the Natural Gas Act and Kansas law.
This case concerns insurance coverage disputes arising from an oil release by Coffeyville Resources, involving claims for property damage and associated clean-up costs under policies issued by Illinois Union (primary) and National Union (excess). The court addressed motions for reconsideration and certification for immediate appeal regarding prior rulings on policy interpretations, including the scope of coverage for clean-up costs under environmental laws versus property damage claims, and the exhaustion of National Union's $5 million self-insured retention (SIR). The court granted Coffeyville's motion in part, holding that payments from Liberty Surplus had exhausted the SIR, allowing National Union coverage to apply from the first dollar of additional qualifying losses not covered by Illinois Union; it denied National Union's motion for reconsideration and Illinois Union's request for interlocutory appeal. The reasoning centered on the unambiguous terms of the policies, the effect of prior payments on the SIR, and the determination that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation due to remaining factual issues on cost allocation.
This case arose from a 2007 flood of the Verdigris River that caused a large crude oil release from the plaintiff's refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas, resulting in extensive property damage and over $50 million in costs. The plaintiff sued its insurers for breach of obligations to indemnify under various liability insurance policies covering the incident. On multiple motions for summary judgment, the court addressed the parties' rights under the policies, applying Kansas rules of insurance contract construction to determine coverage for pollution-related losses. The court examined policy language on pollution conditions, exclusions for cleanup costs, and requirements for reasonable efforts to terminate discharges, ultimately resolving issues of whether coverage was triggered under the Illinois Union and National Union policies.