William J. Wertz

This case involved a challenge to a 1962 election in Jewell County, Kansas, authorizing a two-mill tax levy and related bond issue to fund the purchase of a site and construction of a long-term care and convalescent county hospital in Mankato, which passed by two votes. Plaintiffs argued that the ballot language was ambiguous or noncompliant with statutes and that three specific absentee and local votes were illegally cast or counted. The court held that the ballot clearly informed voters of the total project cost, funding sources, and purpose, with descriptive terms like "Long Term Care and Convalescent" being non-misleading surplusage under the relevant statutes. It further ruled that the challenged voters met residency and absence requirements under state law, so their ballots were valid. Because the election outcome remained unchanged after these rulings, the court affirmed the judgment upholding the levy and bond issue.

electionstaxeshealthcare

This case involved two telephone companies seeking to rescind their sales contracts with buyer Howard Kendall on grounds of alleged false representations that he was purchasing the exchanges personally as an individual and would move to the area to provide local supervision and maintenance. The companies claimed Kendall had actually purchased them for a third party using borrowed funds. The trial court found no clear and convincing evidence of such misrepresentations and entered judgment for Kendall, which the appellate court affirmed after reviewing the record for substantial competent evidence supporting the findings. The court also held that complaints about service adequacy or rates should first be addressed to the state corporation commission rather than through rescission claims. Other arguments regarding compliance with commission orders were rejected as without merit.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved upstream landowners seeking to enjoin downstream landowners from constructing a levee and altering a creek's channel as part of a flood control plan approved by the state's chief engineer of water resources. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the administrative hearing provided sufficient review. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that absent a statutory right of appeal or evidence of illegal, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct by the administrative official, courts lack authority to conduct a de novo review of the engineer's discretionary decisions on matters like feasibility and public interest in water management projects.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Janice Bolyard against Emil Zimbelman seeking damages for the wrongful levy of an execution. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed the judgment and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to comply with Rule No. 6 by not serving his designation of the record and statement of points on the appellee or allowing her twenty days to respond, which prevented her from adequately preparing her portion of the record. Although the court reviewed the record and found no error by the trial court, the procedural violation required dismissal of the appeal.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal from a district court order reviving a dormant 1957 money judgment obtained in a real estate foreclosure action by First Federal Savings & Loan Association against Harrison S. Tanner. After the judgment became dormant in 1962 and Tanner died in 1963, the plaintiff sought revivor against the appointed executor, T. Richard Liebert, who objected on grounds that he was not a proper party and the court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court revived the judgment, applying both the prior and new Kansas codes of civil procedure under K.S.A. 60-2608. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that revivor is a statutory right when a proper party files a timely motion in the correct form, the executor qualifies as the decedent's personal representative, the court that rendered the judgment has jurisdiction to revive it, and all procedural requirements were satisfied.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned the validity of an antenuptial contract and a spouse's consent to a will executed by L.A. West and Mamie Hall shortly before their 1961 marriage. The trial court ruled the documents invalid and awarded Mamie half the estate plus homestead and statutory allowances. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the antenuptial agreement was enforceable. The court reasoned that Mamie had been fully advised by the drafting attorney of her legal rights without the agreement, understood the terms after review, had a long history of business dealings with West, and showed no evidence of fraud or inadequate disclosure that would invalidate the contract. The court remanded for entry of judgment upholding the documents.

family lawproperty