District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Wisner v. Unisys Corp.
District Court, D. Kansas · 1996-02-26 · cited 14×
The case involved a plaintiff who alleged injury from operating a U.S. Postal Service multiple position letter sorting machine (MPLSM) manufactured by Burroughs Corporation, later succeeded by defendant Unisys. Unisys moved for summary judgment based on the government contractor defense. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The Postal Service had developed and approved precise design specifications for the MPLSM through extensive testing and review, prohibited Burroughs from making unilateral changes including adding warnings or labels without prior approval, and rejected the contractor's suggestions for design modifications to the keyboard. These facts established that the defense applied even in this civilian procurement context, barring the plaintiff's claims.
torts & liabilityfederal power
AVES BY AND THROUGH AVES v. Shah
District Court, D. Kansas · 1996-01-18
This case is a garnishment action brought by plaintiffs who obtained a multi-million-dollar medical malpractice judgment against Dr. Nasreen Shah, seeking to recover amounts exceeding the statutory limits of the Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund on grounds that the Fund acted in bad faith or negligently by rejecting pretrial settlement offers within policy limits. The underlying malpractice verdict had found the doctor 90% at fault for injuries to minor plaintiff Darcy Aves, and the plaintiffs alleged the Fund ignored warnings that a verdict would likely exceed coverage. After the Kansas Supreme Court answered certified questions by holding that K.S.A. 40-3403(e) and 40-3412(c) bar any bad-faith or negligence claims against the Fund, the district court granted the Fund's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court further rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, concluding that the statutes do not violate due process, equal protection, or contract-clause protections because no vested property right exists in the abolished common-law cause of action. The decision rests on the plain language of the state statutes immunizing the Fund and on precedents recognizing legislative authority to modify or eliminate common-law remedies.
healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure
United States v. Hampshire
District Court, D. Kansas · 1995-06-14 · cited 23×
In United States v. Hampshire, defendant Ricky Hampshire was charged under the Child Support Recovery Act (18 U.S.C. § 228) with willfully failing to pay a past-due child support obligation arising from a 1985 Kansas divorce decree, where the child resided in another state. Hampshire moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the CSRA was unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment and lacked a sufficient interstate commerce nexus, and that the underlying support order was invalid due to violations of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and due process. The court denied the motions, holding that the statute is constitutional because it expressly requires an interstate element and has a substantial effect on commerce, and that the support judgment was valid and not rendered without due process since Hampshire had opportunities to challenge it but did not. The ruling emphasized that the CSRA applies only to interstate obligations, distinguishing it from statutes invalidated in United States v. Bass and United States v. Lopez.
criminal lawfamily lawfederal power
United States v. Brown
District Court, D. Kansas · 1995-06-01 · cited 6×
The case involved Ruby Brown, convicted after trial of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, distribution offenses, and firearm charges related to drug trafficking, along with her husband and daughter. Brown moved for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 based on newly discovered evidence that she suffered from battered woman syndrome, which she argued supported a compulsion defense under Kansas law. The court granted the motion, ruling that the syndrome evidence qualified as newly discovered because its concealment is inherent to the condition, that due diligence was satisfied as it surfaced only post-trial via family contacts, and that it was more than cumulative and would likely lead to acquittal.
criminal lawprocedure
Glickman, Inc. v. Home Insurance
District Court, D. Kansas · 1995-05-12 · cited 3×
The case involved Glickman, Inc. seeking to compel its insurer, Home Insurance Company, to provide defense and coverage for pollution-related claims in an underlying lawsuit, along with attorney fees under K.S.A. 40-256 for the insurer's alleged refusal without just cause. Home had initially reserved rights due to questions about policy documentation and whether the claims sought response costs rather than damages covered by the policy. The court had previously ordered Home to defend, after which Home reimbursed defense costs and settled the underlying claims. On the remaining issue of attorney fees, the court granted Home's motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that a good-faith legal controversy existed because of a split in authority on whether response costs qualified as damages, providing just cause for the denial of coverage.
business & regulatoryenvironment
Castleberry v. Boeing Co.
District Court, D. Kansas · 1995-03-09 · cited 12×
In Castleberry v. Boeing Co., plaintiffs Kerry Castleberry and John Melton, former first- and second-level managers at Boeing, sued after their termination for participating in a workplace birthday celebration where a non-management employee presented a dildo as a gag gift. The incident occurred two months after both plaintiffs attended a mandatory Boeing seminar on sexual and racial harassment that emphasized the prohibition of sexually suggestive items in the workplace. Boeing conducted an investigation and discharged the plaintiffs for unacceptable conduct, while imposing lesser discipline on another manager present. On Boeing’s motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reason for their termination or any claim of disparate treatment, granted summary judgment to the defendant, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion.
labor & employmentcivil rights