Henry W. Green jr

The case involved a stepparent adoption petition filed by M.S., the husband of A.S., seeking to adopt A.S.’s children B.T.M. and E.A.K.M. over the objection of their natural father, J.R., who refused consent and asserted his parental rights. The district court terminated J.R.’s parental rights under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 59-2136(h)(1)(F) on grounds that B.T.M. was conceived as a result of rape and under subsection (G) based on J.R.’s failure to perform parental duties for E.A.K.M. for two consecutive years, then granted the adoption. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the statute applied under the facts presented and that substantial evidence in the record supported both the rape finding for B.T.M. and the two-year failure of parental duties for E.A.K.M.

family law

Three landowners challenged Wyandotte County’s reclassification of six parcels near Lake Quivira from agricultural to vacant use for 2006 and 2007 tax years, which raised their property-tax assessments; the county had initially sent March 1 notices for some parcels but later changed three to vacant after inspections, and it classified all as vacant in 2007. The Court of Tax Appeals upheld the vacant classification for both years, ruled the county could not alter the 2006 values after the initial notices, and allowed the 2007 increases. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the non-agricultural classification, the county had missed statutory deadlines for 2006 changes, and documented evidence of vacant status plus the consolidated appeals process supplied the substantial and compelling reasons needed under K.S.A. 79-1460(a)(2) to raise valuations in 2007 without constituting retaliation.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning properly terminated Deputy Michael Maurer for violating the department’s truthfulness policy after Maurer cracked a patrol car windshield by throwing a notebook at a horsefly, then provided incomplete and misleading accounts in both verbal statements and two written reports. The Civil Service Board found the termination unreasonable and ordered reinstatement with lesser discipline, but the district court reversed that ruling and upheld the firing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the sheriff’s conclusion that Maurer had intentionally falsified or omitted material facts about the incident, thereby breaching the policy’s prohibition on false statements or failures to disclose information in the performance of duties. The majority also rejected challenges to the board’s procedures and scope of review as either unpreserved or harmless.

labor & employmentprocedure

J.A. Tobin Construction Company sued to set aside a 2008 tax sale of its vacant Kansas lot, claiming the county failed to provide proper notice after years of unpaid taxes and a nuisance cleanup assessment. The district court upheld the sale to Sherman Williams, finding that service by publication was sufficient because the county had no reasonable way to locate Tobin’s address. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that publication service violated due process and rendered the sale void. The court reasoned that once the county learned Rosedale Development (Tobin’s predecessor) was a forfeited Missouri corporation, a quick search of the Missouri Secretary of State’s website would have revealed the 1985 merger and Tobin’s address, making personal service reasonably possible and required.

taxespropertyprocedure

In Jewett v. Miller, plaintiffs Jewett and Caffey were injured in a car accident after their vehicle struck a horse owned by defendant Miller that had escaped from its enclosure on his farm. They sued Miller for negligence, claiming he failed to properly inspect and maintain the fence, which allowed the horse to get onto the highway. The trial court granted summary judgment to Miller, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the evidence showed Miller regularly inspected the fence, made repairs when needed, and had no prior escapes, with no evidence presented that he breached his duty of care; it also held that evidence of post-accident repairs was inadmissible to prove negligence under Kansas statute.

torts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Rollins, Shannon Rollins was convicted by a jury of theft, a severity level 9 nonperson felony, after evidence showed he used forklifts to load two pallets of aluminum forms from his employer Wall Ties into a van on July 31, 2008, which were never recovered. The district court sentenced him to 11 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Rollins challenged the conviction on grounds including lack of substantial competent evidence for alternative means of theft under K.S.A. 21-3701(a)(1) (obtaining or exerting unauthorized control), improper admission of a timesheet and daytime surveillance video testimony without proper foundation or discovery compliance, dismissal of the jury outside his presence, and cumulative error. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the theft charge under either means, the video testimony had adequate foundation based on personal knowledge, the timesheet was properly admitted, and no errors occurred that warranted reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Roy v. Edmonds, Jarrod Roy filed a 2010 paternity action under the Kansas Parentage Act seeking to establish that Dennis Edmonds, who died in 2008, was his biological father so that Roy could inherit from Edmonds' estate; Roy alleged his mother had an affair with Edmonds after her divorce and that he learned of this at age 15. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, ruling it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in K.S.A. 38-1115(a)(2) that runs after a child reaches majority. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the limitations period applied because no presumption of paternity under the Act had been established before suit, that the equal-protection challenge to the statute failed because states have a legitimate interest in preventing stale claims, and that the public-policy argument was either unpreserved or meritless for the same reason.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns post-divorce proceedings in which James Strieby sought to terminate or modify spousal maintenance payments established in the parties' 2005 separation agreement after 29 years of marriage. The agreement provided for $1,000 monthly maintenance plus a percentage of additional earnings, subject to modification under K.S.A. 60-1610(b)(2) only with consent if increasing or accelerating liability. The appellate court affirmed denial of the motion to terminate or modify, finding no substantial change in circumstances, but reversed the trial court's unauthorized increase or acceleration of payments; it upheld a $5,500 attorney fee award to Linda while remanding for clarification on additional fees and affirmed the $165,000 supersedeas bond requirement.

family law

In Sauls v. McKune, a Kansas prison inmate challenged disciplinary sanctions including a $20 fine and loss of good-time credits imposed for a brief escape from a work assignment, filing a habeas petition under K.S.A. 60-1501 alleging due-process violations at his hearing. The district court dismissed the suit as untimely under general civil-procedure rules requiring prompt service on the Secretary of Corrections. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 30-day filing deadline in K.S.A. 60-1501(b) and the prison mailbox rule rendered the petition timely, that ordinary service requirements do not apply to these habeas actions, and that prison officials violated due process by denying without adequate explanation the inmate’s request to call witnesses who could have rebutted the sole eyewitness testimony. The court remanded with directions to set aside the sanctions and conduct a new hearing.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a dispute over whether a father's spanking of his 7-year-old daughter, which caused bruising to her buttocks, constituted child abuse under Kansas law. The mother sought to substantiate the abuse allegation through an administrative process, where an initial hearing officer found clear and convincing evidence of abuse based on testimony from the child, parents, and a pediatrician, but the agency's appeals committee reversed that finding. The committee concluded the evidence was insufficient because the doctor did not testify with 100 percent certainty that the spanking caused the injuries and because there was no proof the father posed a danger to children generally. The court held that the committee had applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring absolute certainty rather than clear and convincing evidence and by misinterpreting the regulation to demand a showing of danger to all children. It therefore reversed the district court's affirmance of the agency decision and remanded the case for further proceedings applying the proper standards.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a passenger, Adam Tran, who was injured in a car accident while riding in a minivan owned by Steven and Xuan Hohensee and driven by Quang Nguyen. Tran sued the Hohensees for negligent entrustment, alleging they knew or should have known Nguyen was an incompetent driver due to the vehicle's unsafe condition, including a removed middle seat, unsecured spare tire, and frayed seatbelt. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hohensees, finding insufficient evidence that Nguyen was an incompetent or careless driver. The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed, holding that negligent entrustment requires proof of the driver's incompetence rather than merely the vehicle's condition at the time of entrustment.

torts & liability

The case involved the estate of Richard Walder suing Jackson County, Kansas, for negligence after Walder died in an accident caused by a collapsed culvert on a rural road, claiming the county failed to properly inspect and maintain the road. The district court struck the estate's expert testimony regarding the specific cause of the collapse because it was not disclosed in a timely manner under K.S.A. 60-226, and granted summary judgment to the county due to lack of evidence on causation. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the undisclosed expert opinion, as the statute requires timely disclosure of expert opinions and grounds, and without it the estate could not prove negligence caused the death. The court also noted the county's claim of immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act but did not address it since lack of causation was dispositive.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved M West, Inc., a tenant at Oak Park Mall, suing fellow tenant Cingular Wireless and the mall owner after Cingular's proposed lease assignment to M West fell through. Cingular had sought Oak Park's consent to assign its remaining lease term to M West in exchange for payment, but Oak Park instead negotiated a lease termination with Cingular for $400,000 and rejected the assignment. M West asserted breach of contract against Cingular and tortious interference against Oak Park. The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding no enforceable contract and insufficient evidence for the tort claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the parties' communications satisfied the statute of frauds, that factual disputes existed over whether a binding contract with conditions precedent had formed, and that a valid contract would support potential liability for bad-faith hindrance by Cingular and unjustified interference by Oak Park.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Robert Hartman, a non-resident business owner in the City of Mission, who challenged the city's refusal to hold a referendum election on citizen-proposed ordinances to establish a historic district and the city council's decision to exclude one of its members from an executive session discussing those ordinances. The Kansas Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Hartman lacked standing to bring either claim. Although Hartman's business could be affected by the ordinances, only city residents may sign referendum petitions, vote in city elections, or elect council members under state law and the city code, and Hartman could not assert the rights of others such as the excluded council member. The court held that an actual case or controversy with standing is required even for declaratory relief, and affirmed the district court's dismissal while dismissing the appeal on the referendum issue.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Michael Wiehe against Kissick Construction Company after he was injured when the sheep's foot roller he was operating tipped over at a highway project. Wiehe tested positive for marijuana at a level creating a conclusive presumption of impairment under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 44-501(d)(2), and the employer sought to deny benefits under the impairment exception. The Workers Compensation Board awarded benefits, finding insufficient evidence that Wiehe had behaved erratically before the accident. The court reversed, holding that the statute's plain language established the presumption of impairment and that evidence of Wiehe's poor judgment in operating the machine showed his injuries were contributed to by drug use, relieving the employer of liability.

labor & employment

The case involved Karl Bowlin's conviction for involuntary manslaughter after an 8-year-old girl died in a house fire that investigators linked to fireworks thrown in the area. Bowlin appealed his bench-trial conviction and sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney's failure to move to suppress statements from a police interrogation and also challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that counsel performed deficiently by not seeking suppression on grounds that the statements were involuntary due to police overreaching and made after Bowlin invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which prejudiced the defense. The court separately concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational factfinder to convict, so retrial would not violate double jeopardy.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Foster, the defendant entered a no-contest plea to aggravated assault with a handgun under a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend probation if his criminal-history score was level C or better. Although the State made that recommendation at sentencing, it provided only negative information about the defendant and offered no support for the specific statutory finding required under K.S.A. 21-4704(h) to allow probation on a presumptive-prison offense. The Kansas Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor substantially undercut the plea agreement, thereby breaching it and denying the defendant due process. Because the defendant's plea relied on the State's promise, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing at which the State must comply with the agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between buyers who purchased a used 1995 Mercedes from a car dealer and later discovered that the air conditioning system required expensive repairs shortly after the sale. The buyers sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code, and the district court awarded them damages for the repair costs but denied attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: the majority held that the implied warranty of merchantability did not extend to the air conditioner in this older, high-mileage vehicle under the facts presented, while a dissent would have upheld the breach finding, confirmed the damages award, and required attorney fees. The core reasoning centered on whether an air conditioner affects the ordinary purpose of a used car for purposes of merchantability and on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the timing and cause of the defect.

business & regulatory

The case involved buyers of two apartment buildings suing the seller for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, claiming the seller's disclosure statement falsely stated there were no drainage, flood, or basement water leakage problems. The trial court granted summary judgment to the seller, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the buyers had waived any right to rely on the seller's representations by signing an acknowledgment in the disclosure form and a real estate contract that authorized and required them to conduct their own inspections of the property, after which they proceeded to closing without further demands. The buyers' hired inspectors found no evidence of water damage, reinforcing that the buyers had chosen to rely on those inspections rather than the seller's statements. The decision applied precedent holding that buyers cannot reasonably rely on seller disclosures when they have inspection rights and related contractual acknowledgments.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved Charles McHenry's post-conviction challenge to his 2001 convictions for rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal sodomy based on allegations by his daughter. The district court granted his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion finding ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to failure to investigate prosecution witnesses and inconsistencies, and also identified newly discovered evidence of recantations that could not have been produced at trial. On the State's appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the standard for reviewing granted 1507 motions and concluding that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced McHenry in a credibility-based case without physical evidence.

criminal lawprocedure