Bob Abbott

This case involved a dispute between the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners and Sheriff Wray Nielander over the Board's attempts to terminate a deputy sheriff's employment and to require the sheriff to obtain pre-approval for purchases exceeding $250. The Board adopted personnel policies asserting exclusive authority to hire and fire county employees and a purchasing policy mandating prior approval, then sought an injunction to enforce these rules after the sheriff continued employing the deputy. The district court granted the injunction, finding the Board had authority over the deputy and that the purchase policy was reasonable. On appeal, the court held that the Board lacked authority to discharge a deputy sheriff appointed by the elected sheriff and that a board may not require an elected official to obtain pre-approval for expenditures necessary to carry out statutory duties within the official's budget; it therefore reversed and vacated those portions of the injunction while affirming other aspects. The court also found the injunction's scope overbroad and inconsistent with statutory requirements for specificity.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Wayne A. Graham's conviction for driving under the influence after a traffic stop, where he moved to suppress blood alcohol test results obtained via an enzyme analysis method on a Kodak Vitros 250 machine. The district court held a Frye hearing and ruled the method inadmissible because it was not generally accepted in the scientific community for forensic purposes in criminal cases, leading to suppression of the evidence. On the State's interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed expert testimony from both sides, noting that the enzyme analysis technique has been used since 1951, is common in hospital labs, and is considered reliable by state labs and other jurisdictions, despite gas chromatography being viewed as the gold standard. The court concluded as a matter of law that the method meets the Frye standard, that conversion evidence from serum to whole blood is also admissible, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by William Mynatt and his company, Mynatt Truck & Equipment, Inc., against former vice president David Collis and his wife Ann Hughes, alleging that Collis misused corporate funds for personal expenses such as credit card payments, vehicles, and home improvements, while also asserting claims related to a promissory note and property ownership. Collis and Hughes denied the allegations and raised counterclaims regarding Mynatt's own use of corporate assets. The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the misuse claims, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Collis breached his fiduciary duties through fraudulent conduct and that the punitive damages award was properly calculated under state statutes without abuse of discretion.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a criminal restitution order following Robert Hunziker's guilty plea to felony criminal damage to property and misdemeanor theft for damaging a victim's backhoe and other property. The district court ordered restitution including the victim's attorney fees for preparing a restitution memo, the fair market value of the backhoe, lost profits, and various expenses, and set monthly payments at $200. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that attorney fees are recoverable as restitution when causally connected to the crime, but reversed in part and directed reduction of the total restitution award by $721.97 for certain unsubstantiated or excessive items; it also ruled that Hunziker's challenge to the monthly payment amount was not preserved because it was not raised below. The court affirmed the inclusion of attorney fees and the handling of the payment schedule issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a direct appeal by Romel Metteh Abu-Fakher from his conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife, Carol Abu-Fakher, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. The defendant, who had a history of assisting U.S. authorities abroad before immigrating, argued on appeal that prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, erroneous admission of evidence about prior incidents in the marriage, and flawed jury instructions deprived him of a fair trial. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the trial record, noted that several claims were not preserved because of the absence of timely objections, found no reversible error in the preserved issues, and concluded that the evidence supported the conviction. The court affirmed the judgment in full.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Vaughn and Sharon Lower, who purchased a cemetery lot in 1994 to erect a monument inscribed 'IN LOVING MEMORY OF ALL UNBORN BABIES' with a Bible verse, without intent to bury human remains. After the purchase, the Haskell County Cemetery District Board adopted a policy limiting lot use to interment of human remains and demanded removal of the monument; the Lowers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of property rights, free speech, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and due process. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the post-purchase regulations did not apply to the Lowers' lot, that no taking occurred because the owners retained sepulture rights, that the Lowers lacked standing to challenge the regulations, and that they failed to show differential treatment of similarly situated owners.

free speechreligious libertycivil rightsproperty