Jay S. Parker

This case was an appeal from the denial of a prisoner's motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate his 1961 sentence for feloniously issuing a worthless check. The petitioner argued that he should have been charged only with an attempt because he never received the car he tried to buy with the check, and that the Kansas Board of Probation and Parole lost jurisdiction over him after his parole violations and out-of-state sentences. The court ruled that a 60-1507 motion cannot be used to review post-sentencing actions by the parole board and that the offense under G.S. 1949 21-554 was complete upon the knowing issuance of the no-fund check, regardless of whether anything of value was ultimately obtained. It therefore affirmed the denial of the motion, finding the original sentence valid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Robert Victor Coats appealing the denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to vacate judgments and sentences from two 1961 criminal cases in which he pleaded guilty to burglary, larceny, and willful destruction of county property. Coats contended that he lacked counsel at his preliminary hearings, received only five minutes of ineffective assistance from appointed counsel at arraignment, and should have been given counsel and a hearing on his post-conviction motion. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial, ruling that the record showed counsel was appointed and effectively represented him at arraignment after discussing the cases, that no substantial issue required a hearing or further appointment of counsel in the 60-1507 proceeding, and that challenges to the separate sentences could be consolidated under the circumstances. The court rejected the other claims as abandoned or without merit based on the transcripts.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate a 1964 conviction and sentence for second-degree burglary and grand larceny in Lincoln County, Kansas. The appellant claimed violations of his rights due to lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing and arraignment, an uncounseled confession, and unlawful extradition from Nebraska. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. The court reasoned that an irregular or unlawful arrest and extradition do not affect a court's jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea or impose sentence, that counsel was appointed before the plea was entered, and that the record supported summary denial without the appellant's presence at the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a misdemeanor prosecution under a 1909 Kansas nuisance-prevention statute (K.S.A. 21-1212) against William D. Johnson for maintaining a pen containing horses and goats that was alleged to be unclean and annoying to neighboring citizens, even though the pen was more than twenty-five feet from the nearest dwelling. After a bench trial in district court, Johnson was convicted and fined fifty dollars. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or violated due-process protections; it held that the second clause of the statute independently criminalized permitting an animal pen to remain unclean to the annoyance of any citizen and that the evidence supported the trial court's finding of such annoyance. The court further concluded that the statute supplied an ascertainable standard and did not require the pen to be within twenty-five feet of a house.

criminal lawenvironment

This case involved an employee of an independent contractor who was injured by an electrical shock while constructing a metal building at the defendant's refinery and sued the defendant for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act because the defendant qualified as a statutory employer. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the limited stipulated facts did not establish whether the construction was part of the defendant's trade or business under K.S.A. 44-503 or whether it was work that would ordinarily have been performed by the defendant's own employees, making summary judgment improper without further evidence.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a stepfather's petition to adopt a minor child without the consent of the natural father, who contested the proceeding after the mother consented. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment granting the adoption, holding that the father had failed to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years as required by K.S.A. 59-2102. The court based its decision on findings that the father had ceased child support payments after July 1961 and made no efforts to locate or visit the child despite opportunities to contact the mother's family, rejecting his argument that withholding support was justified to compel enforcement of visitation rights.

family law

This case is an appeal from the district court's denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to vacate a 1958 criminal judgment and sentence for second-degree burglary, which had been enhanced to 15 years under the habitual criminal act based on prior convictions. The petitioner alleged he lacked timely notice of the enhancement, had no counsel at his preliminary hearing, was denied appeal rights due to the clerk returning his notice, and that one prior conviction was invalid because he waived counsel without required findings. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the facts showed competent appointed counsel throughout, proper introduction of prior convictions, and an unperfected appeal due to lack of service, with no rights violated at the preliminary stage. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, adopting the trial court's memorandum as correctly resolving all claims under the facts and law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the validity of service of process in a civil action filed in Sedgwick County district court against defendant Veatch. After the plaintiff filed an amended petition, the clerk issued a summons directed to the Sedgwick County sheriff, but it was delivered to and served by a deputy sheriff of Crawford County, where Veatch resided. Veatch filed a special appearance and motion to quash the service, which the trial court overruled, leading to further proceedings and an appeal. On rehearing, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the service was invalid under longstanding precedent and statutes (G.S. 1949, 60-2506 and 60-2513), because only the officer to whom the summons is directed or that officer's deputy may properly serve it; a deputy from another county lacks authority. The court therefore reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to sustain the motion to quash.

procedure

This case involves an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate a 1960 conviction and sentence for second-degree forgery. The appellant, who had waived a preliminary examination without counsel, was later appointed counsel in district court, waived arraignment through that counsel, and entered a guilty plea, after which he was sentenced. More than four years later, he sought relief claiming lack of counsel at the preliminary examination and arraignment, plus failure to be advised of appeal rights. The district court denied the motion after a hearing, finding the claims unsupported by the record and barred by precedent. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the guilty plea with counsel waived any preliminary examination issues and that no basis existed for vacating the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a strip of land in Wichita, Kansas, that the city had condemned in 1950 for widening Kellogg Street, paying full value for the fee even though only part was immediately used. The plaintiff, who acquired the property via quitclaim deed in 1961, brought an action to quiet title to the unused portion, claiming the city abandoned its easement through nonuse. The trial court ruled for the city, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that mere nonuse for a limited time does not constitute abandonment of a condemned easement unless future use for the public purpose becomes impossible or highly improbable, which the facts did not establish, particularly since the original lots could not be divided and compensation was paid.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate a 1959 criminal judgment and sentence for three counts of third-degree burglary. The appellant, who waived his preliminary examination without counsel but was represented by appointed counsel at his arraignment where he pleaded guilty, argued that the lack of counsel at the preliminary stage violated his rights under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Gideon v. Wainwright. The court held that no constitutional violation occurred because a preliminary examination is not a trial and Kansas law does not require appointed counsel at that stage. Additionally, the voluntary guilty plea entered with counsel waived any irregularities in the preliminary proceedings. The district court's denial of the motion was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Wheat State Telephone Company's challenge to a State Corporation Commission order granting Southwestern Bell the right to take over service from DeSoto Mutual Telephone Company, which had sought to abandon its operations; Wheat State and Southwestern Bell had both applied to assume the service. The district court dismissed Wheat State's application for judicial review as untimely under K.S.A. 66-118c, and Wheat State appealed that dismissal. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 30-day review period began running the day after the Commission's orders were mailed on May 7, 1964, and that Commission rules adopting Code of Civil Procedure timing provisions added three days for mail service, making the deadline June 9; because the review application was filed on June 10, it was late and the court lacked jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over the State Corporation Commission's grant of a certificate of convenience and necessity to Holestine Truck Line for transporting specific commodities like insulation, agricultural implements, steel, iron, and dog food in 6,000-pound truckload lots to points in Kansas. Graves Truck Line and another company protested the grant, and the district court vacated the Commission's order, citing inadequate findings on existing service adequacy and lack of support in the evidence. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, holding that any deficiencies in the original order were cured by the order denying rehearing, which included additional findings, and that the evidence demonstrated unique needs of shippers that justified the limited certificate under the Commission's discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether Tommy Hammett, a prisoner serving a sentence of five to ten years for second-degree burglary in Kansas State Penitentiary, could sue San Ore Construction Co. and Jerry Dennison for damages from personal injuries allegedly caused by their negligence in an October 1962 accident. The district court dismissed the action, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that K.S.A. 21-118 suspends all civil rights of a person sentenced to confinement for a term less than life during the term of the sentence, that the right to sue is among those suspended civil rights, and that this rule has long been recognized in Kansas precedents and treatises. As a result, the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to maintain the suit while imprisoned, though the dismissal was without prejudice to any rights after the sentence ended.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a damages action brought by a plaintiff injured as a passenger in a vehicle that encountered an unmarked ditch at a dead-end township road intersection. The district court dismissed the original petition for failing to state a claim under K.S.A. 68-301, then denied the plaintiff's later motion to vacate the judgment and file an amended petition correcting the alleged location of the ditch within the road limits. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that relief under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(1) for mistake or inadvertence is discretionary, that the plaintiff offered no justification for the original error, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disturb the final judgment.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a partition action over a house in Topeka, Kansas, where co-owners (three children from the decedent's first marriage holding one-twelfth interests each, and the second wife holding a three-eighths interest after electing against the will) disputed division of proceeds, reimbursement for improvements and taxes paid by the second wife, claims for rent, and whether homestead rights could attach to the property or its sale proceeds. The trial court ordered partition and sale, directed payment of back taxes and $206.03 in improvements from proceeds before distributing shares, denied the children's rent claim, and ruled that homestead and estate distribution issues must be resolved in probate court. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the children's appeal because they had acquiesced in the judgment by seeking enforcement of the partition and sale orders, affirmed the trial court's handling of equities and expenses under the occupying claimant law and partition statutes, and rejected the second wife's cross-appeal seeking to impress homestead rights directly in the district court or prevent proceeds from entering probate. The court reasoned that partition decrees allow equitable adjustments among co-tenants, that acquiescence bars appellate review of objectionable portions, and that probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over homestead claims and estate administration following the sale.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case is an appeal by Ray R. Tipton from a district court order denying his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to vacate his 1955 guilty plea and life sentence for first-degree murder in Johnson County, Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Tipton received a full evidentiary hearing with competent appointed counsel who negotiated a plea arrangement under which Tipton testified against a co-defendant in exchange for the state's recommendation against the death penalty. The court found no violation of constitutional rights, as the plea was voluntary, counsel had diligently represented Tipton, and any alleged promises were fulfilled or did not render the proceedings invalid. The court also rejected claims regarding the lack of a responsive pleading by the state, noting both the absence of any objection at the hearing and that such a pleading is not required under the statute when a full hearing occurs.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a wife suing her husband for damages after he intentionally rammed her car with his vehicle during pending divorce proceedings, which resulted in her serious injury. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the wife could not maintain a tort action against her husband for personal injuries occurring during the marriage, affirming the trial court's judgment on the pleadings. The court reasoned that the common-law rule barring interspousal tort suits remains in effect until the marriage is dissolved by divorce, that the pending divorce action did not alter the marital relationship, and that any exception for intentional acts should be made by the legislature rather than the courts, adhering to precedent from Sink v. Sink.

family lawtorts & liability

This case is a workers' compensation appeal in which claimant Kenneth R. Mannell sought review of a district court decision denying him benefits for personal injury allegedly arising out of and in the course of his employment as a painter on June 5, 1963. The district court found that Mannell failed to sustain his burden of proving a compensable accidental injury, reversed the examiner's award in his favor, and entered judgment denying compensation. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's factual finding was supported by substantial competent evidence, including physician testimony that the claimant's headaches resulted from a pre-existing hypertensive condition that was not precipitated or aggravated by his work. Appellate review under K.S.A. 44-556 is limited to questions of law, so the court could not disturb the district court's factual determination when substantial evidence supported it.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a driver's license suspension under Kansas implied consent law for refusing a blood alcohol test after arrest for driving under the influence. The district court restored the license, ruling that acquittal on the DUI charge rendered the reasonableness of the refusal a moot issue. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the civil license revocation proceeding is entirely separate from the criminal DUI prosecution and that acquittal has no effect on whether the refusal was reasonable. The court directed a new trial focused solely on the reasonableness of the refusal under K.S.A. 8-1001.

criminal lawprocedure