Patrick Mcanany

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this workers' compensation case, Tasha Burns appealed the denial of death benefits following the death of Anthony Anguiano, claiming she was his common-law spouse and thus entitled to benefits under Kansas law. The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the Appeals Board's decision, which had upheld the administrative law judge's ruling that no common-law marriage existed. The court found substantial evidence that, although the couple lived together, raised children, and expressed future intent to marry, there was no present agreement to be husband and wife, as shown by their separate finances, tax filings listing them as single, and lack of holding themselves out as married in official documents. The Board had also modified the benefit allocation to Tony's four children but correctly denied Tasha any share. The court rejected claims that uncontroverted evidence was ignored, concluding the findings were supported under the Kansas Judicial Review Act standards.

labor & employmentfamily law

In State v. Anderson, the defendant was convicted of criminal threat and drug-related offenses after threatening SRS employees during a meeting about child custody and drugs being found in a jacket in his truck, which he claimed belonged to someone else. The court reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring the defendant to remain shackled throughout the trial without conducting a hearing or providing reasons on the record, in violation of established Kansas and federal precedents requiring exceptional circumstances for such restraints. This error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the shackling could have prejudiced the jury's view of the defendant as violent, impacting the credibility determinations central to both the threat and possession charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Chetwood, the defendant appealed his probation revocation in one case and his sentence in another after pleading guilty to felony theft and later to burglary and misdemeanor theft. He contended that the State violated the plea agreement, which required recommending probation to residential community corrections, when a community corrections officer instead recommended imprisonment. The court held that the officer acted as an agent of the State, so her contrary recommendation breached the agreement even though the prosecutor had stated the recommended disposition. It reversed the probation revocation and vacated the sentence, remanding for rehearing before a different judge, while finding a separate sentencing enhancement issue moot.

criminal law

Ticia Watkins was convicted of six felonies related to the sale of cocaine after being arrested in 2005 on a warrant issued in 2003. She appealed on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired before her arrest, arguing that the delay in executing the warrant was unreasonable. The court determined that law enforcement had taken sufficient steps to locate her, including entering the warrant in a national database, and that her false statements about her identity contributed to the delay, so the prosecution was timely commenced. The court also rejected claims that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at a pretrial hearing and that her prior criminal history could not be used in sentencing without jury findings. The convictions were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Commerce Bank's effort to collect on a promissory note executed by Wanda before her death by reaching assets in her revocable trust after her probate estate proved insolvent. The district court granted summary judgment allowing the bank to attach the trust assets and the appeals court affirmed. The court held that the trust was governed by Kansas law under the Kansas Uniform Trust Code, which permits creditors to reach assets of a revocable trust to satisfy the settlor's debts. It further reasoned that the estate's insolvency made direct recovery from the trust appropriate and any procedural issues regarding first exhausting probate assets were harmless error.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Storey, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of burglary and theft for entering a partially constructed medical center building at night and removing a saw from a locked toolbox inside; the structure had four brick walls, a roof, concrete floor, and electrical work but lacked windows and doors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the burglary conviction, holding that the unfinished building qualified as a "building" under K.S.A. 21-3715(b) because it was sufficiently enclosed to meet the statute's ordinary meaning. The court also upheld the sentence, which relied on the defendant's prior convictions to set the criminal history score, following binding precedent that such facts need not be proved to a jury. However, it reversed the order requiring reimbursement to the Board of Indigents' Defense Services for attorney fees because the district court failed to consider on the record the defendant's ability to pay, and it remanded for a new hearing on that issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Byron Porter's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion challenging the denial of his request to withdraw a no-contest plea to aggravated robbery and the imposition of a 107-month sentence after he failed to appear at the original sentencing hearing. The court decided to affirm the district court's denial of the motion. The core reasoning was that the State honored the plea agreement by standing by it at sentencing, the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made with proper advisements regarding potential sentences and criminal history, and issues regarding the original sentencing and plea withdrawal were either waived or not subject to review in this collateral proceeding absent exceptional circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Fielden, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of violating a protection from abuse order issued against him by his ex-wife, based on incidents including phone calls and driving by her home. Fielden appealed, arguing due process violations from consolidating multiple cases for trial, improper admission of evidence, and prejudicial statements in the prosecutor's closing arguments. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining the cases, that evidentiary issues were not preserved for appeal, and that the closing arguments were within permissible bounds and did not deny Fielden a fair trial.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Four Seasons Apartments suing AAA Glass Service for installing non-compliant doors in an apartment building under an oral contract in 1993, with claims for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the defects were discovered in 2005. The court affirmed dismissal of both claims, holding that they were barred by the three-year statute of limitations under K.S.A. 60-512. The court reasoned that the limitations period for KCPA claims begins at the time of the alleged deceptive act rather than upon discovery, rejecting any implied discoverability rule due to the absence of a corresponding repose period unlike in fraud claims, and that implied warranty claims accrue at the time of breach in 1993 regardless of when damages were discovered.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved disputes over the validity of a 2004 annual meeting and board election in Sugar Valley Lakes Homes Association, a Kansas homeowners association, where plaintiffs including Robert Lowe challenged the quorum calculation that excluded association-owned and assessment-delinquent lots, the effectiveness of 1996 bylaw amendments, and the failure to update articles of incorporation to reflect a board size increase from three to five members until after the election. The district court ruled in favor of the association on the two remaining issues after partial summary judgment and an evidentiary hearing, finding the quorum proper under the bylaws, the 1996 bylaws controlling, and the articles amendment a ratified technicality that caused no harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that voting rights could be suspended for nonpayment of assessments without loss of membership, that the association met its quorum requirements, and that Lowe failed to prove any invalidity in the 1996 meeting or other corporate actions.

business & regulatorypropertyelections

In State v. Bastian, the defendant appealed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police encounter on private property. The Court of Appeals held that the initial detention and search of the vehicle were lawful based on the circumstances observed by officers, including a syringe in plain view, but the subsequent order for the defendant to empty his pockets lacked reasonable suspicion justifying a pat-down search, rendering the methamphetamine evidence inadmissible. Accordingly, the court reversed the methamphetamine conviction while affirming the paraphernalia conviction supported by the visible syringe, and it vacated the fines and BIDS fees due to the trial court's failure to make required findings on the defendant's financial resources before imposing them.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ross, a Kansas officer stopped the defendant's vehicle after it crossed the fog line once on an interstate highway, leading to the discovery of cocaine and drug paraphernalia during a subsequent search and arrest for driving without a valid license. Ross was convicted of drug possession and related charges after the trial court denied his motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop. On appeal, the court reversed the convictions, holding that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because K.S.A. 8-1522(a) only requires driving "as nearly as practicable" within a single lane, and a single brief deviation under windy conditions without other indicators of unsafe driving or impairment did not violate the statute or justify the seizure under the Fourth Amendment and K.S.A. 22-2402. The ruling emphasized that the statute permits safe lane adjustments and that isolated movements alone do not create articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, unmarried parents with joint custody of their young son disputed whether he should attend a religious private preschool and kindergarten or a public school. The district court sided with the mother, applying a presumption in favor of public schooling that the father had to overcome when one parent objected to religious education, and denied the father's request without an evidentiary hearing on the child's best interests. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that joint custody gives parents equal decision-making rights and that disputes over schooling must be resolved based on the child's best interests without any presumption favoring secular education or disfavoring religious schooling. The appellate court remanded for an evidentiary hearing focused on the best interests analysis, citing precedent that courts can address such issues without violating the Establishment Clause by neutrally evaluating relevant factors.

family lawreligious liberty

In State v. Merrills, the defendant appealed his resentencing on aggravated robbery and attempted second-degree murder convictions after an earlier upward durational departure sentence was vacated for violating Apprendi and Gould. The trial court overruled his objection to including juvenile adjudications in his criminal history score, imposed the presumptive sentence on the robbery count, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for a controlling term of 308 months, which was less than the original 494-month term. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Kansas Supreme Court precedent in Hitt permits the use of juvenile adjudications to calculate criminal history without jury findings, that Blakely did not alter that rule, and that no presumption of vindictiveness applied to the new consecutive sentences because the overall term decreased and the defendant failed to prove actual vindictiveness.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights