Perry L. Owsley

The case involves defendants Smith and Miller who filed a motion for rehearing in a state criminal prosecution, claiming the court misstated the filing date of the complaint in its analysis of their speedy trial claim. The court corrected the record to reflect that the complaint was filed on both January 10, 1975, and September 3, 1975, rather than solely the later date. It denied the motion, however, because the adjustment in dates did not alter the outcome on the speedy trial issue. The court reasoned that the defendants' alleged prejudice arose from the period between the January 6, 1975, offense and their June 1975 notice of the state charges, during which they were tried and sentenced in federal court.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Anita Quenzer sought a court ruling to interpret a clause in the couple's 1971 property settlement agreement, which had been incorporated into their divorce decree, requiring her ex-husband Lloyd to make monthly payments on the mortgage for the home awarded to her until it was fully satisfied. After a second mortgage led to foreclosure and a third party paid off the original mortgage, she claimed the husband owed her the remaining balance. The trial court found the clause ambiguous, admitted parol evidence of the parties' intent, and ruled in her favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract language was unambiguous and that parol evidence was inadmissible because the agreement was silent on payment by a third party, which was not a vital point contemplated by the parties.

family lawproperty

The case involved defendant Rodney Sanders's convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of assault stemming from a 1977 shooting in Kansas City that killed Sol Rosen and involved confrontations with others and police. On appeal, Sanders challenged the jury panel for allegedly lacking sufficient Black representation after the state struck the sole Black juror, the admission of his undisclosed statements to officers, the testimony of a state psychiatrist on his mental state, and the continued use of the M'Naghten insanity standard. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the random, race-neutral computer selection from tax and census rolls showed no systematic exclusion of minorities, that the officers' testimony and expert opinion were properly admitted as they reflected honest professional statements, and that precedent supported retaining the M'Naghten rule rather than adopting the ALI test. A dissent argued for using the ALI standard for insanity determinations.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves an employee suing his employers for wages allegedly withheld without proper authorization between April and October 1972. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the claim arises from an oral employment contract and is subject to the three-year limitations period under K.S.A. 60-512(1) rather than the one-year period for statutory penalties. The court reasoned that although the employee relied on a statute requiring signed authorization for wage deductions, the action seeks recovery of earned wages, not a penalty or forfeiture. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine when the wages were due under the contract.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the appeal of Jerry Wayne Smith and Carol J. Miller from their convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of kidnapping stemming from a 1975 bank robbery in Wichita, Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdicts, holding that the evidence, including witness descriptions, vehicle identifications, and recovered items like bank checks and money bags, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court reasoned that the defendants' challenges regarding identification, search and seizure procedures, jury instructions, and prosecutorial statements did not demonstrate reversible error, as the trial court properly managed these issues and the overall evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Soles, the defendant appealed his convictions for three counts of first-degree murder, one count of aggravated burglary, seven counts of aggravated battery, and one count of aggravated assault arising from a 1976 shooting spree from a downtown Wichita building that killed three people and wounded seven others. The primary issues on appeal concerned whether the trial court properly found the defendant competent to stand trial under K.S.A. 22-3301 despite additional psychiatric reports and observations not presented at the competency hearing, whether certain evidence such as a transcribed police interview was properly excluded for lack of foundation, and whether pretrial publicity denied a fair trial absent a motion for change of venue. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the examining psychiatrist's conclusion that the defendant understood the proceedings and could assist in his defense, that any evidentiary issues caused no prejudice, and that claims of prejudicial publicity could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The court emphasized that all relevant mental health information was ultimately presented at trial and that the statutory competency standard focuses on the defendant's ability to comprehend the nature of the proceedings rather than the absence of mental distress.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a mandamus action by the Garden City Educators' Association against a district judge and school board, seeking to compel impasse resolution procedures under K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 72-5426 after negotiations for 1978-79 teacher contracts stalled despite 18 sessions and a tentative agreement rejected by the association. The district judge found an impasse but declined to order the procedures, citing time constraints from the Shawnee Mission precedent that prevented completion before budget deadlines like July 1. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the impasse procedures added by 1977 amendments to the Collective Negotiations Act are mandatory, requiring the district court to order their commencement upon an impasse finding, with negotiations continuing until the procedures are exhausted or the parties mutually agree to end them. The core reasoning was that the statutory scheme, including good-faith negotiation requirements and impasse mechanisms, eliminates prior roadblocks and demands completion of the full process rather than halting negotiations early based on timing alone.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose when a news reporter, Joe Pennington, was subpoenaed during the first-degree murder trial of Milda Sandstrom to disclose the identity of a confidential source who had relayed secondhand information about a threat made by a state's witness against the victim. The trial court denied the reporter's motion to quash and held him in direct criminal contempt after he refused to identify the source, sentencing him to sixty days in jail; the court found no privilege existed or that any limited privilege was outweighed by the needs of the criminal proceeding. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while a limited reporter's privilege is recognized under the First and Fourteenth Amendments per Branzburg v. Hayes, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the obligation to provide relevant testimony in a criminal case on a case-by-case basis. The court concluded that the trial court properly determined no privilege applied here to shield the information. Dissenting opinions argued the information was not material to the defense of insanity and that the contempt sanction was improper.

free speechcriminal law

This case involved a rear-end automobile collision in which defendant Morton Marlatt struck the vehicle driven by plaintiff Robert Garrison with plaintiff Mabel Garrison as a passenger, leading to claims for personal injuries and damages. After a jury awarded the maximum allowable verdicts of $35,000 to Robert and $15,000 to Mabel, the defendant appealed, challenging jury instructions on damages and intoxication. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on future pain, suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of income, and permanent injury when no supporting evidence existed in the record, as the treating physician testified both plaintiffs had recovered. The court also found insufficient evidence to warrant an intoxication instruction, as the only proof was one plaintiff's testimony about smelling alcohol on the defendant's breath. The dissent argued the evidence justified the intoxication instruction and would have affirmed liability while remanding only on damages.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the validity of a mortgage given by defendant Keith Brooks to plaintiff Glen Beck, an equipment dealer, as security for the purchase of combines and other machinery. Brooks executed a mortgage and financing statement with an incorrect legal description of the Kansas land he intended to encumber, which he obtained from his mother; he later acquired full title to the correct 80-acre parcel. After Brooks defaulted and a deficiency arose, Beck sought to foreclose, but the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that a subsequent correction to the mortgage description voided it and that the after-acquired property doctrine did not apply without ratification. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the facts called for imposition of an equitable mortgage because the parties intended to charge the land as security for the debt, the description error did not change the intended obligations, and the doctrine of after-acquired title estopped the mortgagor from denying the lien. The case was remanded for entry of judgment impressing the equitable mortgage and for resolution of priority between competing mortgages.

property

This case involved a dispute between a Kansas milling company, Choo-E-Flakes, Inc., and customer Ernest G. Good over payment for custom-mixed cattle feed on an open account, where the defendant counterclaimed seeking refunds based on alleged violations of the Kansas Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act. The trial court ruled that the Act did not apply to the transactions, struck the counterclaim, and a jury awarded the plaintiff a reduced amount due to issues with some grain quality. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the feed qualified as exempt "custom mixed feed" because the defendant controlled the ingredients and formula with no nutritional guarantees from the plaintiff, and the Act's requirements for labeling or delivery tickets applied only to customer formula feeds where such guarantees are made. The court also found no error in excluding testimony from an unqualified expert witness on feed mixing.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Mary Galvan suing defendant Roger McCollister and others after $250 in cash she delivered to settle a prior lawsuit allegedly disappeared at the Legal Aid Society office, with theories of embezzlement or negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing McCollister from the case, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held there was no evidence connecting McCollister directly to the loss and that respondeat superior did not impose personal liability on him as a director or fellow agent. It further rejected arguments based on professional corporation law, noting that Legal Aid was a nonprofit entity to which those statutes did not apply.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a declaratory judgment action filed by John Cady against his former wife Lowanda Cady and a state tax director to interpret K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 60-1610(c) and determine whether a spouse holds a species of common or co-ownership interest in property titled in the other spouse's name prior to a divorce decree dividing the assets. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, absence of a controversy, and as a collateral attack on the divorce decree. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that an actual controversy existed over the nature of the property transfer (which had prompted federal and potential state tax assessments treating it as a taxable event under U.S. v. Davis) and that the action properly sought statutory interpretation rather than attacking the prior judgment. The court reasoned that, consistent with precedents from Colorado and Oklahoma, Kansas law treats the division of marital property acquired during marriage as a recognition of co-ownership interests rather than a transfer in satisfaction of an independent obligation, and remanded for entry of judgment accordingly.

family lawtaxesproperty

In State v. Palermo, the defendant was charged in Kansas with aiding and abetting the sale of heroin after he helped obtain the drugs in Missouri, which were then delivered to an informant in a transaction that crossed briefly into Kansas. The trial court allowed the case to proceed to a guilty verdict but later granted acquittal on the ground that Kansas lacked jurisdiction over the defendant. The state appealed, arguing that jurisdiction existed under K.S.A. 21-3104 because the defendant aided and abetted a crime partly committed in Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state actor who neither intended to commit a crime within the state nor could reasonably foresee that his actions would aid a crime there.

criminal law

This case arose from a 1975 car collision in Wichita in which Larry Miles turned left into oncoming traffic and was struck by defendant Charles West, injuring Larry, his wife Peggy, their daughter Dawn, and West. A jury apportioned 40% fault to Larry Miles and 60% to West and awarded damages to the injured parties; the trial court then reduced Peggy and Dawn Miles' recoveries against West by 40% to account for Larry's negligence, reduced Larry's own recovery accordingly, and barred West from any recovery. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the comparative negligence statute preserved joint-and-several liability, that interspousal and intrafamily immunities prevented reduction of their awards, and that Peggy Miles should not have her recovery diminished by her husband's fault. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, relying on its prior decision in Brown v. Keill to hold that K.S.A. 60-258a abolished joint-and-several liability so that each tortfeasor's responsibility is limited to his or her percentage of fault, that the statute applies even when an immune or non-party driver contributes to the harm, and that the evidence did not support finding Peggy Miles negligent as a passenger.

torts & liability

The case involved Missouri residents injured in a car accident in Kansas who sued the defendant driver for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages under Kansas law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, applying the Kansas Automobile Injury Reparations Act's threshold requirements that bar tort claims for non-pecuniary damages unless medical treatment reaches $500 or specific serious injuries occur. The appellate court affirmed in part, holding that nonresident drivers operating vehicles in Kansas are subject to the Act's limits on pain and suffering claims because they must maintain conforming liability insurance, but reversed in part to permit recovery for actual medical expenses and lost wages, which the Act does not bar. The core reasoning was that the statutory scheme expressly extends to nonresidents using Kansas highways and distinguishes pecuniary from non-pecuniary losses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an interlocutory appeal in a personal injury action stemming from a 1975 two-car crash in Kansas involving Eurich, Alkire, and a third party, Faris. In a prior lawsuit brought by Faris against both men, a jury found Eurich was the driver and apportioned fault 40% to him and 60% to Alkire for negligent entrustment, resulting in a $50,000 judgment. The district court granted Eurich summary judgment on liability in the present case based on those findings, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed. The court held that under the state's comparative negligence statute (K.S.A. 60-258a), all claims and issues of liability arising from a single occurrence must be litigated in one action, so any party served in such an action who fails to assert a cross-claim against others is forever barred from doing so later.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Phipps, the defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder under K.S.A. 21-3401 after a fight with the victim that escalated into repeated beating and kicking, resulting in death from a skull fracture and blood aspiration. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant waived objections to photographs of the victim by failing to raise them at trial, that statements by the deceased were admissible as non-hearsay to show his state of mind, and that rebuttal evidence was properly admitted in the trial court's discretion to contradict the defendant's account of events. The court further found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct and determined that evidence of prior threats and the defendant's return to continue the assault was sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Plains Transport, owner of a tractor and tank-trailer destroyed in a fire during gasoline delivery to King Oil's bulk storage tank. The plaintiff claimed the defendants were negligent per se for violating state fire marshal regulations on tank supports and check valves, which allegedly caused the fire to spread and destroy the equipment. The jury found for the defendants, denying recovery. The court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions properly required proof of both regulatory violation and proximate cause of damages, and that the evidence raised factual questions for the jury on whether the violations caused the loss or if the equipment would have been destroyed regardless.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a defendant's convictions in Harvey County, Kansas, on multiple felony counts including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder, following his transfer from federal prison under the Agreement on Detainers. The court ruled that the state violated Article IV(e) of the Agreement by returning the defendant to federal custody without trying all pending Kansas charges, requiring dismissal of those charges with prejudice. The reasoning centered on the Agreement's mandatory terms, which apply once a detainer request triggers federal release of custody and bind both state and federal parties, as supported by precedent from other jurisdictions. The court affirmed the awards and recoupment procedures for attorney's fees in the indigent defense fund as constitutional and within ethical obligations.

criminal lawprocedure