Alex M. Fromme

William C. Woods, a Black employee at Midwest Conveyor Company, filed a complaint with the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights alleging racial discrimination in workplace treatment, discipline, training, and his eventual termination. The Commission found in Woods's favor after a hearing, awarding back wages and damages for pain and suffering; the district court affirmed this decision after a de novo review of the transcript. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the charge was timely filed under the continuing violation doctrine but that the district court had misapplied the burden of proof by requiring the employer to rebut a prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence rather than placing the ultimate burden on the complainant. The court further addressed the relevance of prior incidents and the requirements under K.S.A. 44-1005 and 44-1009 for proving unlawful employment practices based on race.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the children of Gary Stevens against their stepmother, alleging that she caused his death by gunshot either negligently or through an intentional tort. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the interspousal tort immunity doctrine barred the children's negligence claim but permitted their claim based on intentional tort, reversing in part the trial court's denial of the stepmother's motion to dismiss. The court reasoned that under K.S.A. 60-1901, recovery is allowed only if the decedent could have sued the wrongdoer if he had lived, and while immunity generally applies to spousal torts including negligence, an exception is warranted for intentional injuries because such acts already destroy marital harmony. The opinion also notes the stepmother's conviction for involuntary manslaughter but focuses on the legal application of immunity to the pleaded theories.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved a complaint to declare Charles K. Wood a habitual traffic offender under Kansas's Habitual Traffic Violators Act based on three prior convictions within five years, two of which were for driving while suspended and one for leaving the scene of an accident under city ordinances. The trial court ruled in favor of Wood, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the city ordinance convictions did not count as qualifying offenses under K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 8-285. The court reasoned that the statute expressly referenced city ordinances only for DUI violations and otherwise limited qualifying offenses to violations of state laws or laws of other states, so the inclusion of municipal violations in only one category implied their exclusion elsewhere; later statutory amendments adding such violations applied only prospectively.

criminal law

In State v. Korbel, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for rape and aggravated kidnapping after forcing a woman at gunpoint to drive to remote locations, where he attempted sexual intercourse without her consent. The court affirmed the convictions and concurrent sentences, including application of the mandatory firearms sentencing provision. It held that an instruction on attempted rape was properly refused because the victim's and defendant's testimony established the required penetration for completed rape; that hearsay evidence of the defendant's prior statements about a gun was admissible as a party admission; that venue for the rape was proper in the county where the crime was charged; and that any error in failing to order a presentence report was harmless because the Kansas Reception and Diagnostic Center reports served equivalent purposes for sentencing and rehabilitation planning.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an original mandamus action brought by the Kansas Attorney General against a unified school district board to compel it to own and operate buses or contract for bus service to transport students rather than using mileage reimbursement contracts with parents. The board had discontinued bus service in one former district area and substituted reimbursement payments after a parent survey and cost analysis, prompting the state to argue that statutes imposed an affirmative duty to provide actual bus transportation. The court examined the relevant statutes, including K.S.A. 72-8301(c) defining "provide or furnish transportation" to include both operating buses and reimbursing private vehicle use, as well as K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 72-8302 making such provision mandatory for qualifying students. It concluded that the board could satisfy its obligations through bus routes, mileage reimbursement, or a combination of the two, consistent with prior case law and the 1968 statutory recodification. The petition was therefore denied.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between First National Bank & Trust Co. and Ford Motor Credit Co. over priority security interests in three vehicles from the inventory of a car dealership that ceased operations. The credit company had financed the dealer's vehicle purchases under a floor plan agreement and perfected its purchase money security interest by filing a financing statement, while the bank claimed interests based on loans to dealer officers for alleged purchases of specific vehicles. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment favoring the bank as to two vehicles, holding that the credit company's interest had priority under UCC priority rules because the transactions were not bona fide sales in the ordinary course of business and the vehicles remained on the lot without payment to the credit company. As to the third vehicle, the court remanded for a new trial due to inadequate discovery and lack of findings on the circumstances of the transaction.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved beneficiaries seeking to recover life insurance benefits under a group policy issued by Nationwide Life Insurance Company. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding the full benefits plus attorney fees, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, adopting the Court of Appeals' opinion on the merits based on the undisputed facts and applicable Kansas law, but modified it to clarify that attorney fees for the appeal should be determined by the appellate court rather than remanded to the district court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Jim W. Harrison, who was charged with aggravated robbery after admitting he robbed a liquor store by claiming to have a gun, though the victim did not see one. Harrison entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery under a plea agreement in which the state would recommend the minimum sentence and advise that no gun was seen, but the trial court later found a firearm had been used based on police reports and imposed a mandatory five-to-twenty-year sentence under K.S.A. 21-4618 without probation. Harrison sought to withdraw the plea, arguing a mutual mistake about the mandatory sentencing consequences. The Kansas Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of the guilty plea, reasoning that the plea bargain rested on an incorrect assumption about firearm use for sentencing purposes and that basic fairness required allowing the defendant to reconsider under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involved a buyer who purchased a new John Deere Powr-Till Seeder from a seller for $4,120 and sought to revoke his acceptance after discovering it failed to deposit seeds properly, preventing a proper crop. The trial court granted revocation of acceptance under K.S.A. 84-2-608 and awarded the buyer the purchase price plus costs, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the machine's nonconformity substantially impaired its value to the buyer, the buyer had accepted it without discovering the defect due to difficulty of discovery before use, timely notified the seller, allowed a reasonable time for repairs that were not made, and revoked acceptance within a reasonable time before any substantial change in the goods not caused by defects.

business & regulatory

The case involved criminal charges against Big 3 Auto Products, Inc., its president Morton Colby, and two sales representatives for alleged violations of the Kansas Securities Act, specifically selling unregistered securities, failing to register as brokers, and making untrue statements of material fact. The charges arose from contracts under which buyers purchased auto parts and mini warehouses to operate as independent distributors in non-exclusive areas. Following a preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the charges after determining that the agreements did not qualify as investment contracts subject to the Act. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal, holding that the contracts created no common enterprise because buyers operated independently, controlled their own efforts and pricing, and bore responsibility for their businesses, with no reliance on Big 3's managerial control.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Panhandle Agri-Service, a Texas corporation, against Kansas farmer Norman Becker for failing to deliver the remaining 912 tons of alfalfa hay under their agreement after Panhandle had already paid for prior deliveries. The trial court awarded Panhandle damages based on lost profits, but both parties appealed, raising issues including whether Panhandle, as an unregistered foreign corporation, could maintain the suit in Kansas and the proper measure of damages under the UCC. The Kansas Supreme Court held that Panhandle was not "doing business" in the state under K.S.A. 17-7303 because it lacked an office, place of business, or distributing point there, so it could sue. On damages, the court ruled that lost profits were improper consequential damages since Panhandle had not attempted cover, and instead applied K.S.A. 84-2-713 to award the difference between the contract price and the higher market price at the time of breach, modifying the judgment to $15,506.18.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Costello, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and attempted aggravated robbery after evidence including his fingerprints, blood-stained clothing, and a distinctive ring matching an injury on the victim was presented at trial. Costello appealed, arguing that his arrest lacked probable cause and that the ring—removed from his personal property envelope at the jail without a warrant and introduced on the first day of trial—should have been excluded as the product of an illegal search or due to unfair surprise. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that probable cause existed based on the officer's observations at the scene, an informant's tip, and other details linking Costello to the crime, and that the ring was lawfully obtained from an inventory search incident to arrest and could be examined without a new warrant. The court further found no abuse of discretion in admitting the ring evidence, as the trial judge offered the defense an opportunity to consult its own expert, which was declined. The opinion applies established standards for probable cause and evidentiary discretion under Kansas statutes and precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Johnson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery based on evidence including his possession of the victim's items, his palm print and blood type at the scene, witness testimony about his movements and sudden cash, and inconsistencies in his account of events on October 19, 1980. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's refusal to suppress certain statements made to police, arguing violations of his Miranda rights under Edwards v. Arizona, and objected to the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments about a witness the defendant mentioned. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant had not clearly invoked his right to counsel during interrogation and that any prosecutorial misconduct regarding the timing of the witness disclosure was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which made it unlikely the errors affected the trial outcome beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The Missouri Pacific Railroad brought a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of Greeley County's home rule resolution known as the 'Greeley County Dirt Embankment Act,' which imposed specific fencing and other requirements on railroad borrow pits. The district court ruled several sections of the resolution invalid as exceeding county home rule authority under K.S.A. 19-101 et seq., and the county appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the resolution directly conflicted with uniform state statutes governing railroad fencing and operations. The court reasoned that the state had pre-empted the field of railroad regulation through comprehensive legislation applicable statewide, making such matters a subject of statewide concern that counties could not override via home rule resolutions.

business & regulatory

The case involved a railroad employee who sued his employer under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for personal injuries sustained when a mail conveyor system fell on him during dismantling work. The defendant sought summary judgment based on a written release the plaintiff had signed for $1,072, which mentioned only injuries to his thigh and forehead. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that the validity of the release presented a genuine issue of material fact for a jury because both parties may have been mutually mistaken about the existence of a serious back injury at the time of signing.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over title to two small tracts of land in Kansas that were conveyed by quitclaim deeds to a school district in 1902 and 1908 for school or cemetery purposes, with no explicit reversion clauses or limiting language. After the land was used for schools for over 60 years and then sold by the district in 1971, the original grantors' heirs claimed ownership by reversion while the current owners held title through the school district. The district court ruled in favor of the heirs, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that the deeds conveyed fee simple title because they lacked any provision for automatic termination or reversion upon cessation of the stated uses, consistent with statutes like K.S.A. 58-2202 and precedents requiring clear limiting language to create a determinable fee. The case was remanded to enter judgment for the defendants.

property

This consolidated wrongful death case arose from a 1977 head-on car collision in Kansas that killed five children and injured one, with the surviving parents suing the father of the at-fault teenage driver. The court held that the evidence supported liability on a negligent entrustment theory because the father, as co-owner and co-signer on the vehicle, knew or should have known of his unemancipated son's history of accidents, moving violations, and reckless driving. It further ruled that comparative negligence principles apply to such claims, with the decedents' and plaintiffs' percentages of fault deducted from the damages awarded rather than from the statutory cap under K.S.A. 60-1903, and that juries must separately determine pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. The judgments were set aside and the matter remanded for a new trial on these grounds.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Ortiz, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated assault and signed a written waiver of his right to appeal, assisted by counsel and an interpreter. Over a year later, he filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion seeking an out-of-time appeal, claiming he did not understand his rights due to illiteracy and language barriers, and that he had been misled or denied effective counsel. The district court granted permission for a late appeal on the ground that everyone is entitled to one. The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in criminal cases, district courts lack authority to extend the deadline, and the limited exception for defendants uninformed of appeal rights or denied counsel does not apply where the record shows Ortiz received advice, an interpreter, and executed a clear waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a Kansas appeal by the state challenging a sentencing court's refusal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of aggravated robbery. The defendant had used an inoperable handgun with a defective firing mechanism, and the lower court declined to apply K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4618, which requires such a sentence for crimes committed with a firearm. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the inoperable handgun qualified as a firearm under the statutory provision. The court relied on its prior definition of a firearm as an object designed or capable of propelling a projectile, reasoning that present disrepair does not negate the design element and that the legislature had not excluded inoperable weapons from the term. The case was reversed and remanded for resentencing under the mandatory provision.

criminal lawguns

This case is an administrative appeal by Boswell, Inc., d/b/a Broadacres, a nursing home operator in Reno County, Kansas, challenging the Department of Health and Environment's denial of state licensure and federal certification as an intermediate nursing care home. The court affirmed the denial after examining a record of four surveys from 1978 to 1979 that documented repeated and uncorrected violations of state and federal regulations on staffing, medication handling, food services, infection control, and related requirements. The core reasoning is that K.S.A. 39-931 limits judicial review to whether the order was arbitrary, unlawful, or unreasonable, and the denial was supported by substantial evidence of noncompliance, including under federal Medicaid certification rules that require state licensure. The court rejected claims of improper delegation of legislative authority and inadequate opportunity to cure deficiencies.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure