Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc.
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-04 · cited 90×
This case involved consumers suing Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Brighton), alleging that its retail pricing policies for handbags and accessories violated the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by constituting illegal vertical and horizontal price-fixing. The district court granted summary judgment to Brighton, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower court incorrectly required proof of concrete antitrust injury, applied an inapplicable rule of reason analysis, and erred in dismissing the horizontal price-fixing claim. The court clarified that the KRTA does not follow federal antitrust precedents in all respects, that explicit agreements are not required for liability, and that a three-year statute of limitations applies to the damages claims. It remanded the case for further proceedings, including on class certification issues.
business & regulatory
Scott v. Hughes
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-04 · cited 34×
This case arose from a one-car accident in which defendant Christopher Hughes, driving co-workers to a drilling work site for Duke Drilling, killed passenger Jeffery Wade Scott and injured two others. Plaintiffs, including Scott's surviving spouse, sued Hughes in negligence after settling related workers compensation claims, and a jury returned a verdict against him. Hughes appealed, arguing he was protected by fellow servant immunity under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. The court reversed, holding that Hughes was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident because his driving was an intrinsic part of his job duties, including being paid for mileage and assembling the crew, so the going and coming rule did not apply. Because his employment status triggered fellow servant immunity under K.S.A. 44-501(b), the civil suits were barred regardless of his eligibility for benefits or intoxication issues, and the judgment was vacated.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
State v. Peppers
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-04 · cited 136×
In State v. Peppers, defendant Antwan T. Peppers was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder arising from a 2006 shooting outside a Topeka bar. Peppers appealed, arguing that the district court erred by admitting evidence of gang affiliation, by giving certain jury instructions on that evidence and the burden of another trial, by allowing the prosecutor’s closing argument to reference facts not in evidence, endorse a witness’s credibility, shift the burden of proof, and express personal opinions on guilt, and by imposing a consecutive hard-50 life sentence based on criminal history not found by a jury. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the gang evidence was relevant to motive and therefore admissible, that the challenged instructions were not erroneous, that any improper remarks by the prosecutor were not gross and flagrant or the product of ill will and did not affect the verdict in light of the evidence, and that the sentencing claim was foreclosed by prior precedent.
criminal lawprocedure
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-23 · cited 31×
This case involved an eminent domain action in which the City of Manhattan condemned three tracts of land owned by Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc., including properties used for a bread business and a meat processing plant; the landowner challenged the district court's $3.5 million compensation award after the appraisers had set a lower amount. The landowner appealed evidentiary rulings that excluded certain expert and lay testimony on valuation, replacement costs, uniqueness of the property, and other matters as irrelevant or remote, as well as the refusal to give two pattern jury instructions on alternative valuation methods. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's evidentiary decisions were proper and that the instructions given correctly reflected K.S.A. 26-513(e) by permitting jurors to consider comparable sales, cost, and income capitalization methods without additional special instructions for unique properties. The core reasoning was that the statute treats the three appraisal methods equally, the excluded evidence did not meet relevance standards, and the instructions as a whole accurately guided the jury on fair market value considering all possible uses.
propertyprocedure
Kansas City Mall Associates, Inc. v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-16 · cited 13×
This case involves an eminent domain action in which the Unified Government condemned property owned by Kansas City Mall Associates, Inc., formerly the Indian Springs Shopping Center, leading to a dispute over the amount of just compensation. The owner appealed the district court's $7.5 million award, challenging the admission of documents from a 2005 tax appeal in which the owner's president had valued portions of the property at a much lower total and certain expert appraisal testimony regarding the property's highest and best use. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the tax appeal documents were admissible both as substantive evidence and for impeachment as admissions against interest. The court further reasoned that zoning at the time of the taking is only one factor in determining highest and best use, and evidence of probable rezoning or alternative uses could be considered by the factfinder without violating the unit rule.
propertyproceduretaxes
State v. Murray
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-02 · cited 5×
In State v. Murray, the defendant sought to correct his decades-old convictions for aggravated robbery and felony murder by arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it never held a required competency hearing after ordering an evaluation under K.S.A. 22-3302. The district court summarily denied the motion, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time and that an order for a competency evaluation suspends proceedings until competency is determined; because the reconstructed record is silent on whether such a hearing occurred, a factual inquiry is needed to decide if the convictions are void. The court rejected arguments that the claim was waived or already decided in prior post-conviction proceedings, noting those actions addressed different legal issues.
criminal lawprocedure