Melissa Standridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Long challenged the assessment of a $100 BIDS application fee for court-appointed counsel both at his initial criminal charges and again during probation revocation proceedings in the same cases. The court held that the fee is not authorized for probation revocation hearings because the relevant statute only applies to defendants entitled to counsel under K.S.A. 22-4503 for criminal prosecutions, and probation revocations are separate proceedings governed by a different statute not linked to the fee requirement. Therefore, the court vacated the portion of Long's sentence requiring payment of the second fee in each case.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Everest, the defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (his fifth such offense), driving while suspended, and felony obstruction of official duty following a traffic stop for an unilluminated license tag, during which he provided false identifying information to the officer before his true identity was quickly discovered via an ID card in his vehicle. He appealed his DUI and obstruction convictions, raising issues including the admission of unredacted video evidence containing officer credibility comments and whether his false statements substantially hindered the officer's duties. The court affirmed the DUI conviction, finding no preserved objection to the video evidence under the contemporaneous objection rule and no support for a sua sponte mistrial. It reversed the obstruction conviction, holding there was insufficient evidence that the defendant's actions substantially hindered or increased the burden on the officer, as required by precedent like State v. Parker. Additional issues on the felony classification and jury instructions for obstruction were deemed moot.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a boundary dispute between owners of adjoining residential properties in Cherryvale, Kansas, where the Wrights claimed title to a 22.5-foot strip of land on Sourk's lot through adverse possession. The Wrights sued to quiet title after discovering their structures encroached on the deeded property line, asserting they had maintained and used the strip for over 15 years based on a 1992 conversation with Sourk identifying the boundary. A jury found in the Wrights' favor under K.S.A. 60-503(b) due to their good-faith belief in ownership and open, continuous possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the verdict, that the Wrights met the statutory requirements, and that any errors in jury instructions were harmless or unpreserved.

property

The case involved Sandra Perry-Coutcher, who was convicted of attempted possession of opiates and sentenced by the district court to probation along with mandatory drug treatment in a community corrections program under K.S.A. 21-4729. The Court of Appeals reversed the sentencing order, holding that the district court lacked authority to impose community corrections drug treatment. The court reasoned that K.S.A. 21-4729 applies only to convictions under specific drug statutes, not to attempt convictions under K.S.A. 21-3301, and that Perry-Coutcher did not meet the criteria under K.S.A. 75-5291 for assignment to community corrections, as the relevant provision was not in effect.

criminal lawprocedure

In Crowther v. State, the appellant challenged the summary dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, which raised claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel following his 2004 convictions for attempted aggravated kidnapping, aggravated arson, and other offenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the motion, files, and records conclusively showed Crowther was not entitled to relief because he failed to allege facts establishing deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice under the applicable legal standards, including well-established precedent on the bodily harm element of aggravated kidnapping. On the specific ineffective assistance claim regarding the aggravated kidnapping conviction, the court found counsel was not deficient for not challenging the sufficiency of bodily harm evidence, as the record showed unnecessary acts of violence during the abduction that satisfied the element under existing Kansas law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Witten, the defendant was convicted by a jury in one case of selling methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school and possessing it without a tax stamp, while pleading guilty in a companion case to possession of methamphetamine and related tax stamp charges. On appeal, Witten challenged the convictions on grounds including prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence for the school proximity enhancement, denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas, and the use of prior convictions in sentencing without jury proof. The court affirmed the guilty pleas and tax stamp convictions, finding no good cause to withdraw the pleas and that precedent permitted judicial consideration of criminal history. It reversed the school proximity conviction in the jury trial case due to insufficient evidence that the actual sale occurred within 1,000 feet of the school, instead directing entry of judgment on the lesser included offense of simple sale of methamphetamine and resentencing. The case was remanded accordingly while affirming the remainder of the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bloom v. Arnold, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility sued prison officials, alleging that one officer assigned him to a physically unsuitable job in retaliation for serving the officer with a federal lawsuit, leading to a disciplinary citation and hearing for failing to report to work. The district court dismissed the petition under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the allegations sufficiently stated a claim for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they described a protected activity (filing a lawsuit), adverse actions that would chill a person of ordinary firmness, and a plausible causal link based on the timing of events. The court directed the lower court to treat the petition as asserting that civil rights claim and allow the defendants to respond.

civil rightsprocedure

In State v. Cummings, Jessica Cummings was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after the death of a 13-month-old child in her daycare care; she had placed the child in a car seat with only the top buckle fastened and left her unattended for over two hours, resulting in strangulation. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on appeal. Cummings argued that the underlying child endangerment offense required specific intent, that the jury should have been instructed on general intent, and that the term 'reasonable probability' in the endangerment instruction needed further definition, but the court rejected these claims. The court reasoned that endangering a child under K.S.A. 21-3608(a) is a general intent crime, requiring only proof that the defendant intentionally placed the child in a situation where injury may occur, without needing to show intent to cause specific harm, and that standard instructions adequately covered the elements without additional definitions.

criminal law

In State v. Dillon, William Dillon was convicted of failing to comply with enhanced sex-offender registration reporting requirements after moving counties and was sentenced to the presumptive 114-month prison term following his no-contest plea. He sought a downward durational or dispositional departure, arguing the sentence was disproportionate to the offense given his compliance history and lack of notice, but the district court denied the motion and imposed the guidelines sentence. The majority held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the appeal despite the general bar on reviewing presumptive sentences because the district court had explicitly refused to consider Dillon's fact-specific proportionality argument, thereby denying him due process at sentencing. The dissent maintained that the district court had considered the departure request and found no substantial and compelling reasons, so jurisdiction was lacking under K.S.A. 21-4721(c).

criminal lawprocedure

Inmate Kenneth Frost appealed a prison disciplinary sanction for possessing tobacco after a guard found it in a sandwich he had been passing between cells, claiming he lacked knowledge of the tobacco and was denied the chance to call two witnesses on that point. The court upheld the sanction and affirmed the district court's ruling against Frost. It held that the plain language of K.A.R. 44-12-903(b) prohibits mere possession of tobacco by inmates without any knowledge requirement, rendering the witnesses' testimony irrelevant. The court further concluded that any due-process issue from taking the witnesses' testimony outside Frost's presence was harmless error, as the outcome would have been the same given his admitted possession.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barriger, a driver convicted of his third DUI challenged the admission of evidence from field-sobriety tests and a blood-alcohol test, arguing that a trooper converted a lawful traffic stop into an illegal arrest by transporting him one mile to a parking lot to conduct the tests when the original roadside location was unsafe. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the brief relocation did not turn the investigatory detention into an arrest requiring probable cause. The reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment standards allowing reasonable movement during a stop based on reasonable suspicion, noting the lack of a safe shoulder, proximity to an intersection and curve, the short distance and duration involved, the absence of handcuffs or other arrest indicators, and the focus on determining whether the driver could safely operate the vehicle.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a contractual dispute over the exercise of a right of first refusal in an escrow agreement tied to the sale of a waste transfer station. Waste Connections of Kansas, as successor to the original buyer BFI, claimed it was entitled to purchase the seller Ritchie Corporation's interest at a discounted price based on a package deal Ritchie negotiated with a third party for both the transfer station and an adjacent landfill. The district court granted summary judgment to Ritchie, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Ritchie breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by allocating an inconsistent and inflated value to the transfer station interest within the overall $4.95 million package. The court therefore entered judgment for Waste Connections in the amount of the $550,000 difference and remanded the attorney fees issue.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Karen Roles, a longtime Boeing employee with a history of respiratory issues, who sought additional workers' compensation benefits for a new injury of vocal cord dysfunction and interstitial lung disease allegedly caused by chemical exposure in her post-1995 workplace. After a 1995 settlement in which Roles had waived future medical benefits, the Workers Compensation Board awarded her $106,339.65 in medical compensation and ordered post-award benefits for expenses incurred outside the 6-month relation-back period under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 44-510k. The court reversed the post-award portion of the Board's order, reasoning that the statute plainly bars compensation for medical treatment incurred more than 6 months before a claimant's application for post-award benefits and contains no exception for expenses ordered by an authorized physician.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Cluck, the defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of involuntary manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol and one count of improper passing after a 2007 car accident in which his Corvette struck a truck, killing three passengers. On appeal, Cluck challenged the denial of his motion to suppress his confession, the imposition of an illegal sentence requiring photos of the victims to be posted in his jail cell, and other sentencing issues, though he did not contest the sufficiency of the evidence. The court held that Cluck failed to preserve the suppression issue by not making a contemporaneous objection at trial as required by K.S.A. 60-404. It further ruled that the photo-posting condition was not authorized by statute under K.S.A. 21-4603d(a) and therefore exceeded the district court's authority, as Kansas courts may only impose sentences within statutory limits. The court vacated the photo condition but affirmed the convictions and the remainder of the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure