Gary Rulon

This case involves two juveniles appealing their convictions under the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code, arguing that the prosecutions were barred by the 2-year statute of limitations due to unreasonable delays in serving their arrest warrants. The Court of Appeals held that the common-law requirement from In re Clyne, mandating that warrants be executed without unreasonable delay to toll the statute of limitations, applies to juvenile proceedings despite the absence of a specific statutory provision like in adult criminal cases. For P.R.G., whose warrant was served after over three years, the court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. For J.C.T., the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the delay in serving the warrant was unreasonable. The reasoning emphasizes protecting the right to timely prosecution and preventing stale charges in juvenile matters.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a water right for irrigation from the Saline River, originally perfected in 1969 and later acquired by the Nelsons in 2004, had been abandoned due to decades of nonuse. The Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources conducted proceedings and issued a final agency order declaring the right abandoned and terminated based on verified reports showing no beneficial use in numerous consecutive years. The district court reversed that order, finding insufficient evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed the district court and reinstated the agency order. The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence in the record, including usage reports and river flow data, supported the agency's factual findings on nonuse, and that courts may not reweigh evidence or credibility determinations on review.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case involved John Sybrant’s appeal of his municipal court convictions for driving under the influence and failing to maintain a single lane of traffic, following a de novo jury trial in district court. Sybrant challenged his convictions on grounds including a defective complaint that charged only one theory of DUI, erroneous jury instructions, insufficient evidence of identity, and the denial of his request to represent himself at trial. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the complaint, instructions, and evidence issues but held that the denial of self-representation constituted structural error because the trial court failed to properly balance the relevant factors or conduct an adequate inquiry into whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded with directions to vacate them and grant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Morris County's appeal of a Court of Tax Appeals (COTA) decision that reduced the 2008 ad valorem tax valuation of Edward Lipson's mobile home, docks, and other improvements on a leased lakeside lot from the City of Council Grove. COTA had lowered the assessed value to $71,000 after finding that the county's higher appraisal improperly included the nontaxable intangible value of Lipson's leasehold interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Kansas law taxes only real property and tangible personal property, that leasehold estates are not taxable under statutes such as K.S.A. 79-101 and 79-412, and that the county's valuation captured nontaxable lease rights rather than the improvements alone. The court also found COTA's valuation supported by the owner's testimony and prior assessments, and not arbitrary or capricious.

taxesproperty

This case is a quiet title action concerning a 1924 deed in which the grantors reserved 60% of the landowner's one-eighth interest in oil, gas, or other minerals under the property. The Ruckers, successors to the grantee, argued that the reservation created a perpetual nonparticipating royalty interest that violated the rule against perpetuities and was therefore void, while the DeLays, successors to the grantors, contended it was a valid mineral interest. The trial court ruled for the Ruckers after a trial on stipulated facts, finding the language created an interest that might never vest and was subject to the rule. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that binding Supreme Court precedents such as Miller v. Sooy and Lathrop v. Eyestone classify the reservation as a royalty interest violating the rule against perpetuities, even while noting the possibility that the state's high court might revisit the issue.

property

In Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., a group of oil and gas lessors in the Kansas Hugoton Field sued Mobil (now ExxonMobil) for breaching express and implied covenants in their leases by improperly deducting gathering and transportation expenses from royalty payments. The district court certified a class action under K.S.A. 60-223(b)(3) covering owners of roughly 2,000 leases, and Mobil appealed, arguing that variations in lease language, choice-of-law issues, and individualized lease examinations defeated predominance of common questions and made the case unmanageable. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the certification, holding that a systemic course of conduct by the lessee in calculating royalties allowed common issues to predominate over individual ones without requiring separate analysis of each lease's formation or intent. The court noted that subclasses or later adjustments could address differences such as a 1984 settlement or recent lease amendments that expressly abrogated implied covenants. It emphasized that the district court had conducted a rigorous review of the statutory prerequisites for numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the termination of parental rights of P.S., the natural father of J.O., a child adjudicated in need of care shortly after birth in 2007. The district court terminated the father's rights following an October 2009 hearing on the State's motion, despite his incarceration in Colorado and his request to participate by telephone, which was denied based on court rules and statutes requiring in-person testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed the termination and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the complete denial of any appearance violated the father's due process rights by preventing him from presenting evidence to counter findings of unfitness or rebut statutory presumptions. The court reasoned that the father's absence was not justified by concerns over assessing demeanor or his own conduct leading to incarceration, and that appointed counsel's presence did not adequately protect his interests in the termination proceeding.

family lawcivil rights

In State v. Whetstone, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for two counts of criminal threat arising from a single threat communicated to two people, arguing the convictions were multiplicitous and that the trial court erred by not giving a limiting instruction on other-crimes evidence. The court held that the two convictions were multiplicitous under K.S.A. 21-3419(a)(1) because the statute's unit of prosecution is the making of the threat, not the number of persons targeted or receiving the communication, and applied the rule of lenity to resolve any ambiguity in favor of a single conviction. It therefore reversed one count, vacated the corresponding sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions. The court further held that the K.S.A. 60-455 limiting-instruction issue had not been preserved because the defendant failed to object at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Chatterton filed a personal injury suit in Missouri after a 2006 vehicle collision, but the action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. He refiled in Kansas within six months, after the statute of limitations had expired. The district court dismissed the Kansas action, concluding that the Missouri filing was a nullity and could not be saved. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 53.01 an action is commenced by filing the petition, so K.S.A. 60-518 preserved the claim for refiling in Kansas.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the City of Topeka's appeal of a Court of Tax Appeals order directing a refund of ad valorem taxes paid by Dillon Real Estate Co. on property subject to an annexation later declared void by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding that the Court of Tax Appeals had jurisdiction because the erroneous assignment of the property to the City's taxing district due to the void annexation qualified as a clerical error under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 79-1701. The court reasoned that the tax grievance procedure was appropriate and that K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 79-1702 authorized refunds even for years beyond the limits applicable to county boards.

taxesprocedure

This case concerns the registration and enforcement in Kansas of a Pennsylvania judgment obtained by confession under a cognovit clause in a commercial real estate lease, where Mark Hankin registered the $184,433.88 judgment against Graphic Technology, Inc. (GTI) in Johnson County District Court and garnished GTI's bank account. After the Pennsylvania court opened the judgment and issued a stay, the Kansas district court vacated the registration, applied Kansas law to release the garnished funds to GTI, and denied Hankin relief based on certain Pennsylvania orders. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the orders vacating the registration and releasing funds, affirmed the denial of relief on the appealed Pennsylvania order, and remanded with instructions to hold the funds until a final Pennsylvania judgment is presented, reasoning that full faith and credit and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act require staying enforcement in Kansas pending final resolution of the Pennsylvania proceedings.

procedurefederal powerproperty

In State v. Murphy, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and without a tax stamp after a traffic stop for speeding on I-70 led to a consented search of his vehicle that uncovered drugs. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence should have been suppressed because his consent occurred during an unlawful continued detention rather than a voluntary encounter after the officer issued a warning and told him he was free to leave. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding under the totality of the circumstances that the interaction became consensual once the traffic stop concluded, allowing the officer's additional questions and request for consent without violating the Fourth Amendment. The decision relied on Kansas precedent applying an objective reasonable-person test to determine whether the driver felt free to terminate the encounter.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a settlement agreement in which Deggingers' Foundry agreed to manufacture and deliver chandeliers and sconces to Mark Cravotta by a set date in exchange for credits on prior payments and additional compensation. After the foundry missed the deadline, it defended by claiming Cravotta failed to provide necessary electrical information, but the trial court ruled that the UCC statute of frauds prevented the foundry from raising this defense based on subsequent communications. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by failing to analyze the agreement under the UCC's parol evidence rule and related provisions on course of dealing, course of performance, and trade usage, which required examining the commercial context of the parties' ongoing negotiations and conduct. The court affirmed the award of $6,000 in attorney fees to Cravotta and remanded for further findings on whether the settlement was integrated or modified by subsequent agreements or practices.

business & regulatory

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the heirs of Mary L. Lee against cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Wade Fischer after Lee died from internal bleeding complications following mitral valve replacement surgery. The anesthesiologist had encountered difficulties placing a Swan-Ganz catheter, which perforated a vein, but Fischer proceeded with the surgery without further investigation or repair; the anesthesiologist settled before trial, and the jury assigned 100% fault to Fischer with damages of $735,182. Fischer appealed, claiming errors in the trial court's jury instructions regarding the anesthesiologist's potential fault and the standard of care. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that the instructions as a whole fairly stated the law, any deviations from pattern instructions were not prejudicial, and there was no basis to reverse for a new trial.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a traffic stop for failing to dim headlights, during which the defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license; after she was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, officers searched her vehicle and found methamphetamine, marijuana, paraphernalia, and other evidence leading to convictions on multiple drug charges and driving while suspended. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The core reasoning was that the vehicle search was lawful under K.S.A. 22-2501 as a search incident to arrest of the area within the defendant's immediate presence, consistent with Kansas precedents on such searches even after the arrestee had been secured.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Willis Harvey's appeal of his conviction for aggravated escape from custody after leaving a work release facility without returning, citing fear of harm from a gang, and later turning himself in. In the first trial the jury received a compulsion defense instruction but hung; in the second trial the district court excluded the defense on the State's motion in limine after finding the evidence failed to meet the required elements and convicted Harvey. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Harvey's own testimony showed he reached safety immediately upon leaving but did not promptly report to authorities, while vacating the BIDS attorney fee assessment for failure to consider the defendant's financial resources on the record and remanding for compliance with State v. Robinson.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Trostle, the State appealed under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3) from a district court's order releasing defendant Donna K. Trostle from the remainder of her one-year jail sentence for felony DUI after she had served nearly nine months, based on the court's earlier statement that it was reserving jurisdiction to consider alternatives to incarceration. The Court of Appeals sustained the State's appeal as a question reserved, ruling that the district court had no jurisdiction to modify the sentence. The court reasoned that a sentence is effective when pronounced from the bench, Kansas statutes and precedents such as State v. Miller and State v. Anthony provide no continuing jurisdiction to alter a legal felony DUI sentence after imposition except to correct clerical or arithmetic errors, and any alternative sentencing must be ordered at the original sentencing proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Neis F. Baatrup, charged with one count of driving under the influence under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 8-1567(a) based on two alternative theories: either being under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safely driving, or having a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more within two hours of driving. The trial court instructed the jury that the alternatives constituted one crime and required the jurors to unanimously agree on and sign the verdict form for at least one theory, which the jury did for both. The State reserved for appeal the question of whether jurors must unanimously select one theory or could instead rely on alternative means so long as they unanimously agreed on guilt. The court determined that the two theories rested on factually distinct acts, making this a multiple acts case rather than alternative means, and therefore held that the jury must unanimously agree on the specific theory of guilt, rendering the trial court's instruction proper.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Genstler Eye Center and Clinic appealing a Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) decision that denied it a Kansas enterprise zone sales tax exemption under K.S.A. 79-3606(cc) for purchases related to building a new $2.2 million medical facility in Topeka. The court affirmed BOTA's denial, holding that Genstler was a retail business ineligible for the exemption because it did not meet the statutory criteria for a nonmanufacturing business, including the requirement that the facility serve as the business headquarters of an enterprise creating sufficient new jobs in qualifying locations. The reasoning centered on statutory construction of K.S.A. 74-50,114 and 74-50,115, which define business types and eligibility, combined with the principle that tax exemptions must be strictly construed against the claimant and doubts resolved in favor of taxation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Daniel and Jill Blomgren appealing the Kansas Department of Revenue's revocation of their liquor licenses after administrative findings that Daniel had falsely certified no ownership interest in another liquor store and that Jill had violated multiple rules under the Liquor Control Act. The district court affirmed Daniel's revocation but reversed Jill's, leading to appeals by both sides. The appellate court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the Blomgrens failed to exhaust administrative remedies by withdrawing their appeals to the Secretary of the Department as required by K.S.A. 41-321 before seeking judicial review. The court reasoned that specific agency appeal procedures under the Liquor Control Act control over general provisions of the Kansas Judicial Review Act, and failure to exhaust bars jurisdiction for both the district and appellate courts.

business & regulatoryprocedure