District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Bernstein v. Carter & Sons Freightways, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-10-23 · cited 3×
This case involves a petition by the National Labor Relations Board under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking temporary injunctive relief against Carter & Sons Freightways, Inc., based on allegations that the company committed unfair labor practices by interrogating employees about union activities, threatening facility closure and employee discharges, ordering retrieval of union cards, subcontracting work, and terminating four employees who had signed union authorization cards. The respondent moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the company received adequate notice of the claims through hand delivery and certified mail, was already aware of the underlying Board proceedings, and suffered no prejudice. On the merits, relying on the administrative hearing record, the court granted the petition and issued an injunction requiring the company to restore operations, reinstate the terminated employees, recognize and bargain with the union retroactively to June 19, 1997, and cease the alleged unlawful conduct pending the Board's final resolution.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Rural Water District No. 1 v. City of Ellsworth
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-10-14 · cited 2×
The case involves a dispute between Rural Water District No. 1 (Post Rock), a rural water association with outstanding federal loans from the USDA Farmers Home Administration, and the City of Ellsworth over the right to provide domestic water service to a new hospital under construction within Post Rock's service territory. Post Rock sought a preliminary injunction to bar the City from supplying water to the hospital site, citing protections under federal law that shield indebted rural water districts from municipal competition in their designated areas. The court granted the injunction, enjoining the City from competing to serve the hospital or blocking Post Rock's access to its pipeline for that purpose. The decision rested on findings that the hospital lies within Post Rock's boundaries established under its FmHA-financed system, that Post Rock remains indebted to the federal government, and that the federal statute prevents the City from encroaching on that service area. The ruling was limited to the hospital and did not address other potential service disputes between the parties.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Hinsdale v. City of Liberal, Kan.
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-07-09 · cited 10×
This case concerns a discovery dispute in federal litigation involving both federal and state claims against the City of Liberal, Kansas, specifically whether statements made during executive sessions of the city commission are privileged from disclosure. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying a motion to certify the privilege question to the Kansas Supreme Court and granting in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel, holding that executive session discussions are not privileged except for attorney-client matters. The court applied the clearly erroneous standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and found no error, reasoning that K.S.A. 75-4319(b) of the Kansas Open Meetings Act contains no language creating a discovery or evidentiary privilege, in contrast to other statutes that explicitly do so, and that privacy interests could be protected by a tailored protective order rather than absolute privilege.
procedure
Tank v. Chronister
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-05-06 · cited 5×
The case was a wrongful death action brought in federal court by a Wisconsin plaintiff against Kansas defendants concerning the death of a Kansas resident. The court initially dismissed the suit for lack of diversity jurisdiction, applying 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) to deem the plaintiff a citizen of the decedent's state. On reconsideration, the court reversed that ruling, holding that the Kansas wrongful death statute (K.S.A. § 60-1902) authorizes heirs to sue in their own right based on their relationship to the decedent rather than through court appointment as a legal representative of the estate, so the statute's citizenship rule does not apply and diversity jurisdiction exists based on the parties' actual citizenships. The court granted reconsideration, denied the motion to dismiss, and certified the jurisdictional question for interlocutory appeal.
proceduretorts & liability
City of Park City v. Rural Water District No. 2, Sedgwick County
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-04-16 · cited 5×
The case involved a city's state court action under K.S.A. 12-527 seeking to purchase water facilities from a rural water district after annexing the served land, following the district's refusal to participate in appraisal. The district removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), which protects federally indebted rural water districts from curtailment of service by municipal annexation. The court granted the city's motion to remand, ruling that the well-pleaded complaint relied exclusively on state law, federal preemption provided only a potential defense rather than a basis for removal, and the complete preemption doctrine did not apply absent a federal cause of action substituting for the state claim.
business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure
Gaschler v. Scott County, Kansas
District Court, D. Kansas · 1997-03-17 · cited 3×
This case arose from the March 1992 arrest of plaintiff Richard Gaschler by Scott County sheriff's deputies after he became intoxicated, argued with family members, threw objects, and requested officers remove his daughter from the home; the deputies observed signs of domestic disturbance, determined Gaschler was the aggressor, and used force to complete handcuffing after he allegedly resisted. Gaschler brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3) alleging excessive force, false arrest, and related violations, along with challenges to his detention and a parallel care-and-treatment proceeding for alcoholism. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, concluding that undisputed facts showed probable cause for arrest and detention, that officers' use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, and that no evidence supported the claimed constitutional violations. The ruling rested on review of the record evidence, including officer and witness accounts, without reaching all alternative defenses raised by defendants.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure