Clair E. Robb

In State v. Atkins, an indigent defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and grand larceny after being bound over following a preliminary examination where he lacked counsel but had waived the hearing. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the absence of appointed counsel at the preliminary stage violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants have no constitutional right to counsel at a preliminary examination, citing multiple prior state decisions on the issue, and affirmed the sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice action in which a patient, after undergoing surgery, fell from his hospital bed while sedated and sustained a hip fracture; the original suit against the hospital was later amended to add the treating physician as a defendant. The issues on appeal concerned whether the amended petition adding the doctor could stand without prior court approval and whether the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court held that the trial judge's subsequent order granting leave to amend ratified the filing, and prompt service of process meant the action against the doctor commenced within the limitations period. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of the doctor's motion to strike and demurrer was affirmed.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a Kansas court action to enforce unpaid child support obligations from a 1946 Nevada divorce decree, where the former wife sought a lump-sum judgment for monthly payments of $67.50 due over the prior five years plus compounded interest. The trial court granted the lump sum based on the Nevada judgment and compounded interest monthly, but the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the enforcement of the support arrears under the full faith and credit clause while modifying the interest calculation. The court reasoned that a properly authenticated out-of-state judgment must be given the same effect in Kansas as in Nevada, precluding relitigation of the underlying agreement or paternity issues, and that Kansas statutes allow only simple interest at six percent on overdue payments rather than compounding. The case was remanded for recomputation of interest on that basis.

family lawprocedure

This case arose from a patient's claim of negligence against a doctor and hospital after the patient developed a severe eye infection following cataract surgery, leading to alleged permanent injury. The court initially affirmed the trial court's rulings sustaining the hospital's demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence and entering judgment for the defendants, but on rehearing it reexamined the record, including testimony from an ophthalmologist responding to a hypothetical question and statements from witnesses about instrument sterilization and the hospital's refusal to call another doctor. The court decided to affirm the judgment as to the doctor but reverse as to the hospital, directing a new trial on the hospital's liability. The core reasoning was that the evidence presented substantial competent proof from which a jury could find the hospital negligent in ways that proximately caused the injury, including deviations from approved practices in post-surgical care and instrument handling, rendering the issues of negligence and causation questions for the jury rather than proper subjects for demurrer.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with second-degree forgery who waived his preliminary hearing without counsel and later pleaded guilty in district court with appointed representation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the absence of counsel at the preliminary hearing did not constitute reversible error under Kansas statutes. It reasoned that no law mandates counsel at that stage and that the voluntary guilty plea waived any prior irregularities, consistent with prior precedent. The court also noted that the defendant's request for parole recognized the validity of the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a landowner's suit against the former lessee of an oil and gas lease for damages arising from the lessee's failure to remove debris, fill pits, and restore the land to its prior condition after abandoning the lease in 1959. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer on the ground that the original 1926 lease imposed no such restoration duty. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that G.S. 1961 Supp. 55-132a, enacted in 1957, validly exercises legislative police power by declaring it against public policy to leave operating structures or equipment on abandoned well sites and by requiring lessees to remove them and grade the land within six months, regardless of the lease terms. The court reasoned that the statute regulates the act of abandonment itself rather than altering the parties' contractual rights under the lease and therefore states a cause of action.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory