Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Polansky
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-11-04 · cited 16×
In Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Polansky, the case concerned the Kansas Division of Water Resources' approval of changes to Wheatland's water rights—shifting uses from irrigation and industrial to municipal and altering places of use—while limiting consumptive use, followed by the Division's later attempt to partially abandon unused portions of those rights after remand. The Kansas Court of Appeals held that the Division could validly limit consumptive use under its regulations implementing the Kansas Water Appropriation Act to protect the public interest, but it lacked authority to declare partial abandonment. The court reasoned that the Act's plain language permits only total abandonment based on complete nonuse of the right, as partial abandonment is not expressly authorized by statute and could undermine conservation goals by encouraging overuse. The case was remanded for further administrative proceedings on the consumptive-use calculation.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty
Gustin v. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-07-08 · cited 2×
The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Patricia Gustin against Payless ShoeSource after she fell and injured her back and leg while unloading a trailer at work. Gustin sought permanent partial disability benefits based on task loss, supported by opinions from two examining physicians regarding her impairment and inability to perform a percentage of her prior job tasks over the preceding 15 years. An administrative law judge averaged the doctors' assessments to award benefits for a 34% task loss, a decision the Workers Compensation Board upheld. Payless appealed, contending that task loss should be limited to tasks the worker could no longer physically perform regardless of pain or physician restrictions. The court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the task loss determination under K.S.A. 44-510e(a) and rejecting the employer's proposed narrow definition of ability.
labor & employment
Thoroughbred Assoc. v. Kansas Royalty Co.
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-02-11 · cited 2×
The case centered on disputes over an oil and gas lease known as the OXY lease in Comanche County, Kansas, between Thoroughbred Associates, which developed the lease, and Kansas City Royalty, which held a one-third interest in the mineral rights. Thoroughbred claimed the lease was improperly unitized and sought recoupment of revenue, while Kansas City counterclaimed for unpaid revenue from production, unauthorized extraction of hydrocarbons, and drainage from adjacent wells. The district court granted summary judgment against Thoroughbred on the unitization issue and for Kansas City on the revenue claims, ruled against Kansas City on the drainage claim after a bench trial, and awarded Kansas City prejudgment interest plus one-third of requested attorney fees under the Interest On Proceeds From Production Act. On cross-appeals, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings in full, based on the lease provisions, the parties' negotiations, trial evidence, and applicable statutes governing production proceeds.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Shrader v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-01-21 · cited 4×
In Shrader v. Kansas Department of Revenue, the case involved the administrative suspension of Stanley Shrader's driving privileges after he refused an alcohol breath test following a traffic stop where the officer observed signs of intoxication but arrested him only for driving with a suspended license. The district court upheld the suspension, finding that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect impairment and that the arrest satisfied statutory prerequisites. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that K.S.A. 8-1001(b) requires both reasonable grounds to believe the driver was operating a vehicle under the influence and an arrest specifically for an alcohol- or drug-related driving offense (or involvement in an accident), conditions that were not met here because the arrest was solely for the suspended-license violation. The court therefore reinstated Shrader's driving privileges.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Aguirre
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-01-07 · cited 6×
In State v. Aguirre, the defendant appealed his convictions in two consolidated cases: one for failing to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act after moving residences, and another for rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated intimidation of a victim based on evidence including a victim's prior inconsistent statements. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed both the convictions and the sentences, which included enhancements under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act due to the defendant's criminal history. The court found that a witness's testimony did not violate an order in limine in a prejudicial manner, that the state had no duty to disclose certain non-exculpatory information, and that other claims of prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary errors, and cumulative error lacked merit. It also held that the use of criminal history for sentencing did not violate due process under Apprendi or related precedents, as no additional factual findings were required by the court.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Elkins
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2010-11-19 · cited 2×
The case involved Cory Elkins' convictions for multiple counts of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy stemming from 1994 and 1995 attacks in Lawrence, Kansas, where DNA evidence collected from the victims was matched to Elkins through the CODIS database after he was identified via a database hit while incarcerated in California. Elkins appealed, arguing violations of his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights due to testimony about the CODIS hit, improper denial of mistrial motions related to references to an "offender index" and sample contamination, prosecutorial misconduct in questioning his expert about retesting, cumulative error, and sentencing issues under Apprendi. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the CODIS evidence was properly limited to explaining the investigative process rather than serving as substantive proof, that any isolated references or cross-examination did not shift the burden or violate confrontation rights, and that sentencing claims were foreclosed by binding precedent. The court found no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or error warranting reversal.
criminal lawprocedure