District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Abraham v. Kansas
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-07-19 · cited 3×
In this case, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Kansas convictions for drug possession and related offenses. The convictions stemmed from a 1995 drug sting operation in which the petitioner, acting as a confidential informant, made statements during police questioning that led officers to obtain a search warrant for his hotel room and seize heroin, money, and paraphernalia. The petitioner argued that his statements and the resulting evidence should have been suppressed due to violations of Miranda and other constitutional protections, but the state trial court denied his suppression motion, convicted him after a bench trial, and imposed a 41-month sentence; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The federal district court reviewed the state proceedings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) standards and concluded that the state courts' rejection of the claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court denied the habeas petition.
criminal lawprocedure
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Stovall
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-05-17 · cited 4×
This case arose from Kansas officials' efforts to enforce the state motor vehicle fuel tax against the Winnebago Tribe and affiliated tribes on fuel manufactured on the Winnebago reservation in Nebraska and sold to Kansas tribes for use on their reservations, including seizure of trucks, trailers, and fuel plus initiation of criminal proceedings. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to halt tax collection, property seizures, and state court actions, arguing tribal sovereign immunity from state taxation. The court granted the TRO, ordering defendants to cease enforcement under the Act, return or refrain from further seizures, and stay the state criminal proceedings until a preliminary injunction hearing. The decision rested on findings that plaintiffs faced irreparable injury not compensable by damages, that the balance of harms favored relief, and that serious questions existed regarding the state's authority to tax the transactions, while directing further briefing on Younger abstention.
taxesfederal powercriminal law
Nolde v. Hamm Asphalt, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-05-10 · cited 12×
This case involves a negligence claim by a motorcyclist injured in a 1998 accident on a Kansas highway construction zone, where he alleges Hamm Asphalt failed to properly maintain the roadway or warn of a dangerous drop-off between the road and shoulder. Hamm sought summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to show causation, while also claiming contractual and common-law indemnification from subcontractor Dustrol; Dustrol moved for summary judgment arguing that Kansas comparative fault rules barred indemnification. The court denied Hamm's summary judgment motion due to genuine issues of material fact regarding the cause of the accident, granted Dustrol's motion in part and denied it in part based on the terms of the subcontract and Kansas indemnity precedents, and granted Hamm's motion to revise the pretrial order.
torts & liabilityprocedure
O'CONNOR v. Midwest Pipe Fabricators, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-05-01
This case concerns Midwest Pipe Fabricators, Inc.'s motion to revive a dormant 1988 judgment against James O'Connor, Elizabeth O'Connor, and Pipex, Inc., which arose from a dispute over unpaid commissions and counterclaims including fraud and RICO violations. The court reviews the extensive procedural history, including contempt findings, appeals that vacated certain sanctions, settlement negotiations, and prior orders requiring asset disclosures. It analyzes Kansas statutes on dormant judgments (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-2403), which require timely executions or renewal affidavits to prevent dormancy after five years, and treats the revival motion as a continuation of the original action rather than a new proceeding. The court ultimately elects to address the motion on its merits despite the moving party's procedural noncompliance with filing rules.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Maggard v. Gammon
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-04-22 · cited 2×
In Maggard v. Gammon, a Kansas prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his convictions on two counts of arson for intentionally setting fires to homes in Overland Park in 1988. The district court denied the petition after reviewing the factual background, including testimony from an associate who drove the petitioner to the sites and evidence of prior uncharged fires admitted under Kansas law, as well as the state procedural history where direct appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. The court held that multiple federal claims were procedurally defaulted due to untimely presentation in state proceedings, with no showing of cause, prejudice, or actual innocence to excuse the defaults, and rejected the remaining arguments on the merits or as non-cognizable.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Hollis
District Court, D. Kansas · 2002-03-22 · cited 2×
The case involves a defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and related drug offenses, based on the Supreme Court's Apprendi decision, ineffective assistance of counsel, and alleged errors in calculating drug quantity attributable to him. The court denied the motion in full. It reasoned that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review such as this one, that the drug quantity determination would yield the same sentencing guideline range even under the defendant's proposed calculations, and that remaining claims were either procedurally defaulted or without merit.
criminal lawprocedure