Brown v. CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPELINE CO.
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-02-28 · cited 14×
This case involved a dispute over a large pin oak tree growing above a high-pressure gasoline pipeline on Lonzella Brown's property in Wyandotte County, Kansas. ConocoPhillips Pipeline Company holds a recorded 1963 easement granting it the right to lay, maintain, operate, inspect, and remove the pipeline, while allowing the landowner to otherwise use and enjoy the property. Brown obtained a permanent injunction barring Conoco from cutting down the tree, which Conoco argued materially interfered with pipeline safety, federal inspection requirements, and emergency access due to root proximity and potential corrosion. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and remanded the case, holding that the undisputed facts showed the tree obstructed Conoco's reasonable enjoyment of its easement rights and that equity could not override those established legal rights.
property
State v. Richardson
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-11-04 · cited 2×
In State v. Richardson, Robert William Richardson appealed the denial of his motion for jail time credit in a Wyandotte County case involving charges of exposing another to a life-threatening communicable disease. He sought credit for approximately 375 days spent in custody from February 2008 to February 2009, which stemmed from Lyon County convictions later reversed by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. The court held that under K.S.A. 21-4614, jail credit applies only to time spent incarcerated on the specific case being sentenced, and Richardson's custody during that period was solely attributable to the Lyon County matters. It rejected his equity-based argument as speculative, noting the absence of evidence that Wyandotte County would have independently arrested and held him during those dates.
criminal lawprocedure
CHELF v. State
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-09-23 · cited 32×
In Chelf v. State, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility sued the State of Kansas for personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident at a prison chemical plant, seeking damages under the Kansas Tort Claims Act after his claim was denied. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Chelf had failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies under K.S.A. 75-52,138 and K.A.R. 44-16-104a, which requires inmates to file personal injury claims with the facility within 10 days of the injury. The Court of Appeals ruled that the exhaustion requirement, though mandatory and strictly enforceable, is not jurisdictional, so the district court erred in dismissing on that ground; nevertheless, it affirmed the dismissal because Chelf filed his claim more than seven months late, his equitable defenses were unsupported, and his procedural due process claim failed since ignorance of the regulation provided no excuse.
torts & liabilityprocedure
CANYON CREEK DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. Fox
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-09-02 · cited 4×
In this case, two Kansas LLCs formed to develop residential real estate sued a 50% member, Mike Fox, for breach of their operating agreements after he failed to meet capital calls issued in 2008 amid declining property values; other members had covered the shortfalls with additional contributions and loans, gained majority control, removed Fox from management, and demanded he pay over $400,000 in past and future obligations. The district court granted the LLCs summary judgment on the contract claims and, on a post-judgment motion, awarded specific money damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the operating agreements and Kansas LLC statutes (K.S.A. 17-7691) provided only one remedy for a member's failure to meet a capital call—dilution of that member's ownership interest—and did not authorize personal damage judgments against the defaulting member. The court reasoned that the agreements' detailed dilution provisions constituted the exclusive consequence contemplated by the parties, and neither the contracts nor the governing statutes imposed personal liability for ongoing capital contributions in an operating venture. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
business & regulatory
State v. Dillon
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-06-17
This case involved Wilham Dillon's appeal of a presumptive prison sentence imposed by the district court in a criminal proceeding. The court of appeals had initially vacated the sentence on due-process grounds but, on remand from the Kansas Supreme Court, reconsidered in light of State v. Huerta. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1) bars review of any sentence within the presumptive range and that a constitutional due-process claim does not create an exception. The court also rejected Dillon's attempt to reframe the matter as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, citing precedent that such motions cannot rest on constitutional challenges.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Schneider v. Liberty Asset Management
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-05-27 · cited 13×
The case involved a homebuyer who sued a company that sold residential property redemption rights, alleging a deceptive act under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act based on a multiple listing service description stating the house had a "new roof" when the roof was only partially new. The trial court found a violation despite no intent to deceive, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that the buyer was not an aggrieved party under the statute because an intervening home inspection report disclosed the roof's actual age before purchase, breaking any causal link between the misleading listing and claimed harm, and the buyer proceeded with the transaction anyway despite contract language requiring independent verification of information.
business & regulatoryproperty