Edward Larson

This case concerned a dispute over which insurer must pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to a Missouri resident injured in a Kansas car accident. The nonresident plaintiff owned a vehicle insured under a Missouri policy that lacked Kansas-mandated PIP coverage; the vehicle was parked in Kansas at the time of the accident, but the plaintiff was driving a Kansas-insured vehicle when the crash occurred. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Kansas vehicle's insurer, American Standard, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the Kansas Automobile Injury Reparations Act requires nonresident owners to maintain continuous compliant insurance on their vehicles while in the state, making the plaintiff an owner of a vehicle for which coverage is required and obligating his own insurer to provide the benefits rather than the insurer of the vehicle he was operating.

business & regulatory

This case concerned the interpretation of wage loss benefits in an automobile insurance policy issued by Farm Bureau under the Kansas Automobile Injury Reparations Act. Elliott sought 100% of his one-day wage loss from an auto accident, arguing the policy language allowed recovery up to 85% of monthly earnings, but the insurer paid only 85% of the actual loss as required by statute for nontaxable benefits. The trial court initially denied judgment on the pleadings but later reconsidered and ruled the policy matched the statutory 85% limitation, entering judgment for Farm Bureau. The appellate court affirmed, holding the policy was unambiguous, expressly aligned with K.S.A. 40-3103(b), and that the trial court properly exercised discretion to reconsider the issue before final judgment. The court rejected Elliott's alternative reading as ignoring the phrase 'loss of monthly earnings' and found no excess coverage granted by the policy terms.

business & regulatory

In State v. Marble, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for aggravated criminal sodomy arising from a 1993 incident in which the complainant alleged he threatened her with a weapon and anally sodomized her, while he claimed the encounter involved an unconsummated act of prostitution and no sexual act occurred due to intoxication-related impotence. Marble raised four issues: improper prosecutorial cross-examination implying witness intimidation without supporting evidence, an ex parte judicial communication with a juror who recognized the victim, exclusion of impeachment evidence against the complainant, and denial of a sentencing departure. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the cross-examination questions did not require reversal absent a demand for proof of foundation or bad faith, the juror communication was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it was unrelated to the case merits and did not influence deliberations, and the notice of appeal did not encompass the sentencing issue while the sentence itself was presumptively valid. The court also noted that any potential evidentiary exclusion was not shown to be reversible error on the record presented.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Tony Caldwell's appeal of his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault, one count of discharging a firearm at an occupied building, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm arising from a drive-by shooting at a Wichita residence occupied by three people. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed all convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the discharge conviction under the statute requiring proof that no occupant was placed in immediate apprehension of bodily harm, that limitations on cross-examination of a witness were within the trial court's discretion, and that the challenged jury instruction accurately stated the law. The court vacated the upward durational departure sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding that the trial court's cited factors were conclusory and failed to articulate substantial and compelling reasons as required by the sentencing guidelines.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Anthony K. Lee's claim for workers' compensation benefits after he injured his back while working at Boeing using heavy tools. Lee returned to a light-duty position at a comparable wage until he was laid off for economic reasons in 1993, after which he earned substantially less in new employment. The Workers Compensation Board applied the statutory presumption of no work disability during the period Lee worked at Boeing but found the presumption rebutted after the layoff, awarding Lee a 37 percent work disability based on evidence of wage loss and reduced labor market access. Boeing appealed, arguing the presumption could not be rebutted by a later economic layoff, while Lee cross-appealed seeking a higher rating. The court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statute to permit the presumption to apply to one time period and be overcome as to another, and finding substantial evidence supported the 37 percent award.

labor & employment

This case concerns a dispute over custody of two minor children following the death of their father, Manuel Osborne, in a Kansas divorce proceeding originally between Manuel and their mother, Patricia. The stepmother, Sharon Osborne, sought to intervene in the divorce case to request custody, alleging Patricia was unfit, but the district court denied her standing, granted immediate custody to Patricia, and suggested proceedings in Maryland. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by effectively denying intervention without allowing Sharon to present evidence on unfitness or extraordinary circumstances under the parental preference doctrine, and by imposing improper conditions on further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

This case involves TMG Life Insurance's attempt to enforce limited personal guaranties against the general partners of Royal Crest Associates after the partnership defaulted on a nonrecourse loan secured by an apartment complex, entered bankruptcy, and transferred the property to TMG in satisfaction of the debt. The trial court held the guarantors liable for one-third of the outstanding loan balance plus post-default rents collected by the partnership, but the appellate court reversed the rents portion and remanded for recalculation of the principal liability. The court reasoned that TMG had not properly vested its rights to the rents by initiating foreclosure or other legal action prior to or during bankruptcy as required by the loan documents, and that the guarantors' one-third obligation must be computed by first deducting the fair market value of the property as of its transfer date from the total debt including principal, interest, and premium.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Tad Garrison, who was injured by a shotgun discharge while hunting with Kurt Pfannenstiel, as Pfannenstiel removed the gun from Garrison's car. Garrison sought personal injury protection benefits from his insurer State Farm and liability coverage under policies from State Farm and Dairyland for his negligence claim against Pfannenstiel. The trial court ruled that the accident did not arise out of the ownership, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle, denying coverage. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the injury resulted from the use of the vehicle because transporting and using guns during a hunting trip in the car was a reasonable and foreseeable use, establishing the necessary causal connection without requiring proof of physical intervention by the vehicle.

torts & liabilityguns

The case involved a dispute between lessor John Hall and lessee JFW, Inc. over whether an oil and gas lease had terminated for failure to timely commence drilling a well. The lease required that a well be commenced by August 3 or 13, 1991, or it would end, and JFW had taken various preparatory steps including staking, surveying, contracting with a driller, and digging pits, but actual drilling began after the deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment to JFW, concluding that its firm commitment and pre-deadline activities satisfied the commencement requirement. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the unambiguous lease terms required actual drilling by the deadline under Kansas precedent, and remanded for entry of judgment for Hall.

property

In State v. Brickhouse, the defendant was convicted of distribution of marijuana, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana after police arrested him during an undercover drug transaction arranged by an informant. The trial court admitted hearsay statements from the informant that implicated the defendant but excluded other hearsay statements that were exculpatory, and it also upheld the warrantless seizure of the defendant's vehicle and rejected a multiplicity challenge to the charges. On appeal, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the selective admission of the hearsay statements violated due process by denying the defendant a fair opportunity to present his defense, while upholding the constitutionality of the vehicle seizure under the controlled substances statute and finding the possession and distribution charges were not multiplicitous due to distinct quantities of drugs involved.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved taxpayers challenging the Shawnee County Commission's decision to increase property valuations without following statutory notice and hearing requirements under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 79-1460, due to errors in the county's computer system that generated inaccurate records. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies first. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that exhaustion is not required when the challenge alleges the agency acted without statutory authority, as courts have the power to review such claims under K.S.A. 60-907.

taxespropertyprocedure

This workers' compensation case arose after claimant Robert Evans suffered a work-related injury in 1983 and received an 83% permanent partial disability award from an administrative law judge in 1992, which the Director affirmed in 1993. The University of Kansas sought judicial review, and the district court reduced the rating to 75% using a de novo standard. On appeal, Evans argued that the University's petition lacked the required specificity under K.S.A. 77-614(b), depriving the district court of jurisdiction, and that the court applied the wrong standard of review following 1993 statutory amendments. The court held that the specificity requirement is not jurisdictional and was waived by failing to request a more definite statement, and that K.S.A. 44-556(c) refers to the ALJ's order for determining the applicable appeal procedures, preserving district court review. It therefore affirmed the district court's decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved two Kansas school districts that entered into multi-year lease-purchase agreements for photocopying equipment with a vendor, which then assigned its rights to Northland National Bank; the districts later sought to cancel the contracts after service issues arose. The trial court granted summary judgment to the districts, ruling the agreements void under the Kansas cash-basis law (K.S.A. 10-1116b and 10-1116e) for failing to include required provisions and for committing funds beyond the current fiscal year without proper authorization. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the contracts directly violated the cash-basis statute's limits on municipal obligations, that the Uniform Commercial Code did not override those restrictions to allow holder-in-due-course status, and that equitable doctrines like estoppel could not enforce illegal agreements by public entities. The decision rested on statutory interpretation and undisputed facts showing insufficient current-year funding for the full contract balances.

business & regulatory

The case involved Brian Blockman’s appeal of his robbery conviction after he entered a convenience store, handed the clerk a note demanding money, and kept his hand in his pocket while repeating the demand, leading the clerk to hand over $25. Blockman argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on theft by threat as a lesser included offense of robbery. The court held that theft by threat qualifies as a lesser degree of the same crime under K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(a), applying the rationale from prior cases that robbery is an aggravated form of theft and that the unlawful taking of property is the gravamen of both offenses. It reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial due to the failure to give the lesser-included-offense instruction, while rejecting other claims including improper prosecutorial remarks.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a conservator appealing a trial court's refusal to double a $1,400 judgment against Velda Souter under K.S.A. 59-1704, which imposes double liability for embezzlement or conversion of a conservatee's personal property. Clarence Bolton had given Souter checks totaling $2,200 to hide assets before his conservatorship was finalized; Souter spent most of the funds, and the trial court found she owed Bolton $1,400 but determined no embezzlement or conversion occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the penal statute requires a fiduciary relationship or court-appointed control over the assets, which was absent here since Souter was not a fiduciary and Bolton was attempting to conceal funds at his own initiative. The court strictly construed the statute and declined to apply it to the facts presented.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case involved Barbara Nicklin obtaining a default judgment against used car dealer John Harper for failing to remit $10,000 from the sale of her vehicle, then attempting to collect via garnishment of the $15,000 motor vehicle dealer bond issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company as required by Kansas statute. The trial court ruled that the bond was subject to garnishment because it was intended to indemnify aggrieved parties like Nicklin and that Harper held a property interest in it, also awarding attorney fees under K.S.A. 40-2004. On appeal, the court affirmed that jurisdiction existed and the bond could be garnished as it was payable for the benefit of persons dealing with the licensee. However, it reversed the attorney fees award, holding that K.S.A. 40-2004 applies only to unauthorized insurers and Hartford was an authorized foreign insurer. The case was remanded after affirming in part and reversing in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over the foreclosure of a land installment sales contract for property in Colby, Kansas, where the buyers (the Hamills) made 64 payments before notifying the sellers (the Barnetts) of their intent to terminate in 1991 and ceasing further payments. The sellers filed suit seeking an in personam judgment for the full remaining balance plus interest, foreclosure of the contract as an equitable mortgage, and sale of the property, while the buyers counterclaimed for misrepresentation regarding the building's roof condition and sought setoffs for prior payments and improvements. The trial court barred the misrepresentation claim under the contract's disclaimer clause, entered judgment for the full balance without requiring an acceleration provision, ordered foreclosure and sale, and confirmed the sale to the sellers for $24,000 despite a prior stipulation of at least $30,000 in value. On appeal, the court affirmed all rulings, holding that precedent permitted the personal judgment, the disclaimer encompassed the building, no setoff was required upon foreclosure election, and confirmation was not an abuse of discretion absent evidence of fraud, irregularity, or grossly inadequate price shocking the conscience. The core reasoning relied on the contract's terms, Kansas case law on foreclosure remedies, and the lack of record evidence to overturn the sale.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Foust, the defendant was convicted by a jury of rape based on conflicting evidence about whether the encounter with the complainant was consensual. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor violated the defendant's constitutional rights by cross-examining him about his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence and commenting on it during closing arguments to suggest his trial testimony was false. The court distinguished prior precedent allowing impeachment based on prior inconsistent statements to police, finding this use of silence impermissible. Although the opinion also addressed the trial court's refusal to permit the defendant's peremptory strike of a Black juror, the reversal rested on the constitutional error regarding silence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of a defendant for attempted second-degree murder after he shot a man multiple times following an altercation at a bar. The defendant appealed, raising issues regarding the appointment of an interpreter under Kansas statute due to his primary language being Spanish, the validity of his Miranda waiver and consent to search, and improper prosecutorial comments during closing arguments. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that an interpreter was properly appointed, the defendant's statements and the searches were valid, and while some comments were improper, they did not prejudice the defendant or deny him a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Dr. S. Sakuntala Dutta suing St. Francis Regional Medical Center for breach of her employment contract after the hospital hired a new radiology director and granted him exclusive privileges, effectively terminating her ability to practice there. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital on Dutta's claim for a due process hearing under the bylaws, but a jury found the hospital breached the contract and awarded her over $550,000 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of breach and the denial of the due process claim, holding that the contract required the new director to be mutually acceptable and that the hospital's actions violated this term. However, the court reversed the damages award, reasoning that it exceeded the amount supported by evidence after accounting for Dutta's mitigation through subsequent employment, and remanded for a new trial solely on damages.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory