Judge, Court of Appeals of Kansas
Bolton v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-23
In Bolton v. Kansas Department of Revenue, Gary Bolton appealed the administrative suspension of his driver's license after a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000 recorded a blood-alcohol level of .246, contending that the test failed to substantially comply with Kansas Department of Health and Environment procedures because he wore dentures during the required 20-minute observation period. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the suspension, ruling that the testing substantially complied with the protocols. The court reasoned that "oral intake" refers to taking something in during the observation window, and Bolton's dentures had already been in place beforehand with no evidence they affected the result; the officer had kept Bolton under continuous observation for 22 minutes without any new substances entering his mouth.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Dunlap
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-12-02 · cited 6×
In State v. Dunlap, the defendant was convicted by jury of aggravated robbery and felony obstruction of official duty after evidence showed he robbed a convenience store clerk at gunpoint, was identified by the victim and a getaway driver, admitted his involvement after viewing surveillance footage, and was apprehended shortly afterward with incriminating items. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge's failure to ask the jury, as required by K.S.A. 22-3421, whether the verdict read in open court was their own required reversal. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on two alternative grounds. First, defense counsel declined the court's offer to poll the jury, which would have served the same purpose of confirming the verdict, so the claim was waived or barred by invited error and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Second, any statutory violation was subject to harmless-error review and did not affect Dunlap's substantial rights, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the jury's brief 21-minute deliberation, and the absence of any indication that the verdict was not unanimous.
criminal lawprocedure
Bohanon v. Werholtz
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-05-13 · cited 11×
Bohanon, an inmate at a Kansas correctional facility, was found guilty of battery and disobeying orders in two disciplinary cases after hearings at which he participated but did not raise any notice issue. He later filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging he had not received the required 24-hour advance written notice of the hearings under K.A.R. 44-13-401(b) and seeking removal of the disciplinary findings from his record. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Corrections, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that mandamus was not available because an adequate remedy existed under the habeas corpus statute, K.S.A. 60-1501, which Bohanon had not pursued. The court further held that Bohanon had waived objections to venue transfer and failed to preserve claims of judicial misconduct for appeal.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
LOUISBURG BLDG. & DEV'T CO. v. Albright
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-04-08 · cited 10×
This case involved homeowners who sued a building company for construction defects in their new home, alleging breach of contract for failing to build in a workmanlike manner and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act for not disclosing budget overruns, while also seeking to hold the company's owner and a related subcontractor personally liable under alter-ego and fraud theories. The district court found the builder liable for contract breaches and KCPA violations, awarding damages and penalties, but rejected alter-ego and fraud claims. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated the contract damages award because the lower court used an incorrect measure that failed to properly calculate expectation damages and remanded for recalculation, while affirming the KCPA penalty award alongside contract damages, the rejection of alter-ego liability, and the dismissal of fraud claims under the economic-loss doctrine. The court reasoned that the KCPA election-of-remedies provision does not bar recovery of common-law contract damages, that the builder's conduct was unconscionable due to deception and power imbalance, and that other claims lacked sufficient evidence or were not properly preserved.
business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability
Siler v. Shawnee Mission School District
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-04-01
This case involved a workers' compensation dispute where teacher Rozanne Siler, injured by lightning while working, settled her claim in 2007 with future medical treatment left open. After the employer sought to discontinue her psychotherapy based on an independent evaluation, an administrative law judge issued a preliminary order directing the treatment to end per the evaluator's plan. Siler appealed to the Workers Compensation Board, which upheld the ALJ's jurisdiction and dismissed her review request. The court dismissed Siler's further appeal, holding that under K.S.A. 44-534a, preliminary orders on future medical treatment are not final, not appealable, and within the ALJ's authority without modifying the settlement award. The court reasoned that the statutes expressly limit review of such non-binding preliminary findings, leaving Siler free to seek additional treatment orders later.
labor & employmentprocedure
Wayman v. Accor North America, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-03-18 · cited 18×
Donald Wayman, a guest at a Motel 6 in Manhattan, Kansas, was struck and injured by a car driven by the motel's intoxicated general manager, Frederick Ristow. Wayman sued Accor North America (the motel operator) for vicarious liability based on Ristow's negligence and for direct negligence in hiring, retaining, and supervising Ristow. The district court granted summary judgment to Accor on both claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Ristow was not acting within the scope of employment when he drank at a tavern for personal reasons even though he was on call, and that Accor had no knowledge of any propensity by Ristow to drive while intoxicated so as to support the direct negligence claims.
torts & liabilitylabor & employment