Patrick F. Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved debtors Marcus and Stephanie Vann who sought to avoid a creditor's lien on equipment used in their snow plowing and lawn care business under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) after filing for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to avoid the lien, ruling that the creditor's pre-bankruptcy repossession made the interest possessory and thus ineligible for avoidance under the statute's plain language. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the debtors could still avoid the nonpurchase-money security interest in tools of the trade. The court reasoned that legislative history shows Congress intended the provision to prevent creditors from racing to seize collateral and that possession at filing does not bar avoidance, contrary to the bankruptcy court's interpretation of precedent.

propertyprocedure

Heather Preston sued her employer, Income Producing Management, Inc. (IPM), under Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment at a Wendy's restaurant created by co-employees' sexual propositions and unwanted touching, including conduct by store co-manager David Poland who ignored her complaints. A jury found IPM liable for discrimination, awarding $8,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, though it rejected a constructive discharge claim. IPM renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), arguing insufficient evidence for punitive damages, but the court denied the motion. The court reasoned that Poland qualified as an alter ego of the employer under Title VII because he exercised significant control over hiring, firing, and employment conditions, making IPM liable for his actions and inactions without regard to its knowledge, and that ample evidence supported the punitive damages award.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Rodger Arst suing defendants Stifel Nicolaus & Co. and broker Odis Shoaf after selling his shares of Physician Corporation of America stock through them, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws for failing to disclose that Shoaf and his family were purchasing some of the shares while acting as accommodating brokers. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, reviewing the limited scope of Stifel's role in facilitating unsolicited shareholder transactions without making recommendations or providing non-public information. The core reasoning focused on the absence of any duty to disclose the broker's own purchases under the circumstances, the lack of an implied private right of action under certain statutes, and whether the facts established any fraudulent scheme or material omission under 15 U.S.C. § 78j or K.S.A. § 17-1253.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (DRGW) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) over liability for a 1991 head-on train collision on Missouri Pacific tracks, where DRGW sued UP in federal court under diversity jurisdiction alleging gross negligence by UP employees under respondeat superior, breach of implied warranty, and related claims, while UP sought to enforce arbitration per the parties' trackage rights agreements. The court previously stayed the case for arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled that the governing agreement allocated all liability to DRGW because the UP-provided crews were operating solely for DRGW's benefit and thus were DRGW's sole employees. DRGW moved to vacate the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10, arguing it violated Kansas public policy by enforcing a liability limitation in the face of gross negligence, but the court held that the arbitrator's findings did not conflict with public policy and that the award could not be vacated or modified. Accordingly, the court confirmed the arbitration award, lifted the stay, denied UP's motion to dismiss, and entered judgment enforcing the arbitrator's allocation of damages and defense obligations to DRGW.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Monnat, the government moved to enforce a subpoena against attorney Monnat to obtain his client's identity under 26 U.S.C. § 60501, which requires businesses to report cash payments over $10,000 to the IRS via Form 8300. The court referred ethical issues regarding attorney-client confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 to the Committee on Attorney Conduct, which determined that client identity is typically not confidential and that complying with the statute or court order does not violate ethics rules, though lawyers may advise clients on compliance options. After Monnat fully complied by filing the form, the government confirmed satisfaction, and the court dismissed the matter with prejudice as moot.

taxesprocedurefederal power

Lyons Federal Savings and Loan sued St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance under a financial institution fidelity bond to recover losses from its servicing contractor Mortgage Finance's handling of loans, including failures to record participation interests, pursue foreclosures, and properly apply funds in projects like the Dire loan and Fair Oakes condominiums. St. Paul moved for summary judgment, arguing the losses did not qualify under the bond's insuring clause K, which requires the employee's manifest intent to cause loss to the insured and obtain a financial benefit. The court granted summary judgment to St. Paul, finding no covered loss because Mortgage Finance's actions lacked the required intent, the bankruptcy trustee's potential claims also fell outside coverage, and there was no viable bad faith claim under Kansas law once coverage was denied.

business & regulatory

This case involved a tort claim by a plaintiff against a railroad company alleging inadequate warning devices at a highway-rail crossing where an accident occurred in 1987. Following a Supreme Court decision and remand from the Tenth Circuit, the district court examined whether the claim was preempted by federal regulations under 23 C.F.R. § 646.214(b)(3) and (4) due to the use of federal-aid funds in the crossing upgrade project. The undisputed facts showed that the Federal Highway Administration had authorized and partially funded preliminary engineering for the project prior to the accident, with final vouchering occurring later. The court determined that this federal participation was significant enough to trigger preemption, even though it did not cover a majority of total project costs. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the inadequate warning devices claim.

federal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a product liability action in which plaintiff Richard Davis alleges he was injured when a defective pressure gauge exploded on a welder at his workplace; Davis and his wife sued U.S. Gauge (the gauge maker) and Victor Equipment Company (an intermediate seller) under negligence, strict liability, and warranty theories, with Victor cross-claiming against U.S. Gauge. Victor moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the wife's loss-of-consortium claim lacked standing and that Victor qualified for the retailer exception under the Kansas Product Liability Act because it was a mere reseller with no duty to test the gauges. The court granted summary judgment on the consortium claim after plaintiffs agreed to dismiss it but denied summary judgment on the retailer-exception issue. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Victor qualified as a manufacturer (by repackaging gauges under its own label) and thus fell outside the statutory exception, making summary judgment premature under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by the United States from a bankruptcy court order that reduced the IRS's tax assessments against debtor Sylvester Domme for the 1981 and 1982 tax years. Domme, who had been convicted of cocaine distribution, had not filed returns for those years; the IRS estimated his income and assessed over $56,000 in taxes, but the bankruptcy court found the debtor's taxable income to be lower after a trial and set the liabilities at $8,668 and $12,248 respectively. The district court affirmed, holding that because the IRS had not filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding it bore the burden of proof without any presumption of correctness, that the government failed to authenticate key evidence of the deficiency notices, and that the bankruptcy court's factual findings on Domme's income and ownership interests were not clearly erroneous.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Samuel Herr's claims against McCormick Grain and James Heiman for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and Kansas Wage Payment Act, recovery of pension benefits under ERISA, and cancellation of promissory notes, with a counterclaim on the notes by the defendants. The court denied Herr's motion for reconsideration of its prior ruling that he had no vested benefits in the Money Purchase Plan, as he was a commission salesman explicitly excluded by the plan terms. The court reasoned that the term 'commission salesman' has a plain and ordinary meaning and is not ambiguous, so extrinsic evidence of how the plan was administered is not considered under contract interpretation rules. The opinion also sets out the standards for summary judgment and begins addressing the parties' pending motions on the notes, personal liability, and other claims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the government's motion to enforce a subpoena seeking the identity of a client who paid attorney Daniel Monnat over $10,000 in cash, which Monnat reported on IRS Form 8300 without disclosing the client's name, address, or taxpayer ID as required by 26 U.S.C. § 60501 and its regulations. The defendants argued that disclosure was barred by the client's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Fifth Amendment due process, and the attorney's ethical obligations under rules of professional conduct. The court reviewed precedents from the Second and Eleventh Circuits holding that attorneys must comply with the statute despite such claims, found no contrary authority directly on point, and noted that other cases on client identity involved different circumstances. Although expressing concern over ethical implications, the court suspended its decision and referred the matter to a committee for further examination of the issues.

criminal lawtaxesfederal power

The case concerned a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act by possessing a firearm in a school zone. The defendant argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and improperly extended federal authority over education, which is traditionally regulated by the states under the Tenth Amendment. The government countered that the Commerce Clause authorized the statute. The court analyzed congressional intent not to preempt state laws, the lack of legislative findings linking school-zone gun possession to interstate commerce, and precedents such as United States v. Lopez, ultimately determining that the statute was invalid as it did not regulate an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.

gunsfederal powercriminal law

This case involved emergency medical technicians suing the Herington Municipal Hospital and Dickinson County under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and on-call compensation, after which the plaintiffs settled with the Hospital for $52,500. The Hospital and County then litigated cross-claims over which party was responsible for those costs under their 1980 contract for operating the county EMS service. The court granted summary judgment to the Hospital, holding that the contract's unambiguous terms required the County to reimburse the Hospital for all expenditures incurred in providing the EMS services, including the settlement payment, attorney fees, and litigation expenses. The court rejected the County's arguments that the contract excluded such costs or that prior conduct altered its meaning, and it dismissed the County's negligence cross-claim as unsupported.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether an insurance carrier, BMA, could intervene in a Kansas personal injury action arising from a dog attack to enforce a contractual subrogation right and recover medical expenses it had paid on behalf of the plaintiff. The court granted the motion to intervene. The reasoning was that the policy had been delivered in Tennessee, Tennessee law permits such subrogation clauses, and Kansas choice-of-law rules therefore controlled; the Kansas regulation barring issuance of subrogation clauses in policies written inside the state did not apply to an out-of-state contract and did not reflect a broader public policy that would override Tennessee law here.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability