District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Kipp v. Myers
District Court, D. Kansas · 2010-11-12 · cited 3×
In Kipp v. Myers, home buyers sued the sellers after discovering that the purchased Kansas property experienced significant flooding due to a nearby flood gate, leading to damage and business losses; the buyers alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud by silence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and rescission based on mistake of fact regarding the property's flooding history. The sellers moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence supported the claims. The court denied the motion, finding that material facts remained in dispute—such as the sellers' knowledge of flooding, the adequacy of their disclosures describing only occasional ponding, and the buyers' awareness and reliance—and that a reasonable jury could find for the buyers on all claims.
propertytorts & liability
Farnsworth v. CITY OF MULVANE, KAN.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2009-09-16 · cited 2×
This case involved a First Amendment challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Jacque Farnsworth against the City of Mulvane, Kansas, after she was denied the chance to ask a question during the question portion of a special city council meeting on endorsing a proposed casino and was escorted out by police. The court found that the meeting rules, which limited questions to the specifics of the Harrah’s presentation and barred broader comments on gambling or social issues, violated Farnsworth’s free speech rights in what the court treated as a limited public forum. It issued a declaratory judgment that the city’s policies and actions were unconstitutional, awarded nominal damages and attorney’s fees, but denied compensatory damages for embarrassment or reputational harm. The decision rested on the conclusion that the restrictions were not reasonable or viewpoint-neutral in light of the forum’s purpose.
free speechcivil rights
Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2008-11-05 · cited 1×
This case is a personal injury action arising from a tractor-trailer collision in which the plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence against the defendant trucking company's employee driver, negligence per se based on violations of state and federal drug and safety regulations, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision by the company. The court ruled on the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness on trucking safety regulations and industry standards under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards for reliability and relevance. The court granted the motion in part, excluding the expert's opinions on microsleep, methamphetamine impairment, the company's mentor program, hiring after failed driving tests, and a 2001 compliance review as lacking sufficient factual basis, reliability, or relevance to the accident, while denying the motion in part as to other opinions.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2008-09-10 · cited 4×
This case is a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a tractor-trailer collision in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendant company's employee driver negligently caused the accident, violated drug-related statutes and regulations, and that the company was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising her. The driver tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine after the accident. The court addressed the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert, forensic pathologist Dr. Kris Sperry, from testifying about the urine test results and the effects of the drugs. Applying the standards from Daubert and Rule 702, the court denied the motion, finding the expert qualified by his extensive experience, his methods reliable based on established toxicology principles and half-life analysis, and his opinions relevant to issues of impairment and causation.
torts & liabilityprocedure
FREEBIRD, INC. v. Cimarex Energy Co.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2008-09-02 · cited 1×
Plaintiff Freebird, a royalty owner, sued Cimarex Energy Co. in state court on behalf of a class of royalty owners to recover for allegedly improper deductions of processing charges from royalty payments on natural gas produced from Kansas wells between 2002 and the date of class notice, seeking an accounting and damages but expressly alleging that the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million. Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold based on past underpayments plus estimated future royalties over the life of the wells. The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand, ruling that defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing by a reasonable certainty that the claims exceed $5 million. The court reasoned that the complaint limits damages to the defined past period without seeking injunctive relief, future royalties are not at issue, and all uncertainties must be resolved in favor of remand.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Farr v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance
District Court, D. Kansas · 2008-06-30
This case involves a claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan sponsored by Via Christi Health System and insured by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company. After approving benefits for the initial 24-month 'own occupation' period, Hartford denied continued benefits under the 'any occupation' standard, relying on medical record reviews by consulting physicians who determined the plaintiff could perform sedentary work meeting the plan's earnings threshold. The plaintiff sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) seeking to recover benefits, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and judgment on the administrative record. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, granted Hartford's motion, and also granted a motion to strike an exhibit and for attorneys' fees, holding that Hartford's denial was reasonable based on the administrative record including opinions from Drs. Ohlberg, Tuthill, Munhall, and Marion.
labor & employmenthealthcare