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

James Tarr was convicted of rape in Kansas district court and later sought to vacate his sentence under K.S.A. 60-1507, claiming he was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing as an indigent defendant. The sole issue on appeal was whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a preliminary hearing. The Kansas Supreme Court held that no such right exists under the Constitution. It affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, relying on prior state precedent including Bergin v. State and related cases that had reviewed and rejected the claim.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Oscar Floyd Wharton, who faced charges in Kansas for first-degree robbery, illegal firearm possession, and escaping custody; he was arrested in Arkansas and returned to Kansas without extradition proceedings. Wharton moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to the allegedly illegal arrest and transport, but he later entered guilty pleas and was sentenced. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that a court's jurisdiction over a defendant does not depend on the legality of how the person was brought into the state, citing longstanding precedent that even forcible or unlawful removal from another state does not invalidate proceedings. The court further noted that Wharton submitted to jurisdiction by waiving arraignment and pleading guilty. The ruling relied on U.S. Supreme Court cases like Ker v. Illinois and state precedents affirming that the manner of acquisition of jurisdiction is irrelevant if the court otherwise has authority over the subject matter.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Ida Poehlman against her employer, Norman Leydig, and insurer after she slipped and fractured her hip at work, which combined with her pre-existing conditions to cause total disability. The trial court found 100% general disability but apportioned only 25% as resulting from the work accident and awarded compensation accordingly. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that Kansas law does not permit apportioning compensation percentagewise based on pre-existing disabilities when a later work injury contributes to total permanent disability. The core reasoning was that the relevant statute applies only to scheduled prior injuries and that, absent explicit statutory authority, the full extent of disability from the compensable accident must be covered without proration for prior conditions or speculation about their impact.

labor & employment

This case involved a subcontractor's attempt to foreclose a mechanic's lien for materials supplied to alter and repair a shower room in the defendant owner's business building. The trial court ruled the lien invalid and entered judgment for the defendant, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the lien statement was not properly verified under the mechanic's lien statute (G.S. 1961 Supp. 60-1403) because the verification failed to show on its face that W.L. Johnston was signing as an authorized agent of the corporate claimant rather than claiming to be the claimant himself. The majority reasoned that mechanic's liens are strictly statutory creations requiring exact compliance with all procedural steps, including verification, and that equitable considerations or extrinsic evidence cannot cure deficiencies appearing on the face of the filed statement.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit by Zane Gard against Sherwood Construction Co. after his wife was killed in a 1961 collision between the family's station wagon (which was pulling a trailer that lost control and veered into the oncoming lane) and the defendant's eastbound truck on U.S. Highway 54. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and entered judgment for the defendant on the ground that no actionable negligence by the truck driver had been shown. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the evidence raised factual questions for the jury about whether the truck driver failed to exercise ordinary care by not slowing, stopping, or swerving when the out-of-control vehicle was visible from a substantial distance, and about whose negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. The court emphasized that negligence actions at common law are generally for the jury to decide rather than resolved as a matter of law on demurrer.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. King, the defendant was charged with first-degree robbery under Kansas statutes and convicted after a jury trial. He appealed the denial of a new trial and his sentence, arguing that his written statement to police was improperly admitted because he had not been advised of his rights or provided counsel when making it, that he was not informed of the charges and penalties, and that he lacked counsel at his preliminary hearing. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge properly found after a hearing outside the jury's presence that the statement was voluntary, with the defendant having been repeatedly advised of his right to counsel and that any statement could be used against him, and that he had signed it without coercion. The court further reasoned that appointed counsel at arraignment could be presumed to have informed the defendant of the charges and penalties, and that waiver of counsel and the preliminary hearing meant no error occurred in that regard. The admissions in the statement were not a full confession requiring additional safeguards.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved plaintiffs seeking removal of a sewer line that defendants' predecessors had installed across plaintiffs' property under a contract that required removal if the line prevented the property from being sold with clear title. The trial court struck a defense based on a city ordinance requiring sewer connections, overruled defendants' demurrer to the evidence, and entered judgment ordering removal of the line so plaintiffs could convey marketable title. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the ordinance did not authorize or require connection to an individual property owner's lateral line and did not conflict with or supersede the parties' contract. The court also rejected a challenge to plaintiffs' attorney testifying about a formal matter. Other issues raised were found meritless.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a state action to abate a liquor nuisance on property owned by defendant Alice Mitchell, where the parties stipulated that the homestead had been used for illegal possession and sale of intoxicating liquor in violation of K.S.A. 41-901 and 41-805. The trial court issued a permanent injunction against future unlawful use and assessed costs but refused to order the home padlocked under K.S.A. 41-806, holding that such an order would violate the homestead exemption in article 15, section 9 of the Kansas Constitution. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that padlocking would constitute an alienation of the homestead without the joint consent of husband and wife and was not among the constitution's limited exceptions for forced sale. The court emphasized that the homestead provision protects family occupancy regardless of the owner's criminal conduct and that the legislature cannot impose additional conditions on homestead rights by statute. Adequate alternative remedies exist under the liquor control act to punish violations of the injunction.

criminal lawproperty

In State v. Akins, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder under Kansas statutes and was sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have imposed a minimum term of ten years and set a maximum term under K.S.A. 62-2239 rather than a life sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that K.S.A. 21-403 and 21-109 permit a life sentence for second-degree murder when no maximum term is specified by law, and that 62-2239 requires commitment as provided by those penalty statutes without mandating a different minimum or maximum. The court reasoned that 62-2239 does not conflict with or repeal the sentencing provisions in 21-403 and 21-109, and prior precedents confirm the trial court's discretion to impose life imprisonment in such cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Rider, the defendant was charged in two consolidated cases with nighttime burglary and larceny plus possession of burglary tools; he was convicted by a jury after the trial court excluded his proposed testimony about his whereabouts on the offense dates. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that K.S.A. 62-1341 requires written notice to the prosecution at least seven days before trial when a defendant intends to offer alibi evidence, and that failure to comply bars such testimony. The court further held that a defendant who elects to testify assumes the status of an ordinary witness, that the constitutional right to defend does not override the statutory notice requirement, and that the absence of any proffer or post-trial showing of the excluded testimony left nothing for appellate review.

criminal lawprocedure

This was a workers' compensation case in which claimant Vincente Gutierrez sought benefits after falling from a scaffold while working for Harper Construction Co., resulting in a compression fracture and other back injuries. The workers' compensation director awarded, and the district court affirmed, a 40 percent permanent partial disability. On appeal, the employer and insurer argued there was insufficient evidence to support the disability finding and that the claimant's refusal of recommended light work as treatment should bar compensation. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained ample evidence to support the trial court's findings on both the extent of disability and the reasonableness of the refusal, which presented a question of fact for the trial court, and that loss of earning power under the workers' compensation act is not negated by ability to perform different work.

labor & employment

In State v. Shannon, defendant James K. Shannon was convicted by a jury on nine counts of issuing insufficient fund checks in violation of Kansas law after opening a joint bank account with false information, depositing uncollectible out-of-town checks, and writing checks that were rejected for lack of funds. He appealed the denial of his motion for a change of venue or judicial disqualification, the admission of other checks and bank records into evidence, and the assessment of court costs against him. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the trial judge demonstrated no prejudice requiring disqualification, that the additional exhibits were properly admitted with limiting jury instructions on their relevance to motive, intent, and similar issues, and that statutes authorized taxing costs to the defendant upon conviction with execution to collect them. The court noted that the defendant received a second preliminary hearing, appointed counsel, and fair proceedings overall.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved upper landowners and their tenant suing lower landowners to enjoin a dam that backed up water and treated sewage from a municipal plant onto their property. The lower landowners counterclaimed for injunctive relief and damages, alleging the sewage discharge created a nuisance and increased water flow damaging their land. The trial court ordered removal of the dam and denied all relief on the counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the dam was unlawful because it was constructed without the required approval from the state's chief engineer under water resources statutes, while the city's permitted sewage discharge into the natural watercourse was authorized and did not constitute a nuisance due to the absence of noxious odors or improper effluent.

propertyenvironmenttorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by Dennis and Edward Callan against W. J. Biermann for property damage to their automobile allegedly caused by Biermann's negligent driving in a passing maneuver on a two-lane road in Sedgwick County. The trial court, sitting without a jury, heard conflicting evidence about whether the plaintiffs' vehicle had signaled a left turn and entered judgment for the defendant after finding the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proof on negligence and proximate cause. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the general finding for the defendant was supported by the evidence under the applicable standard of review and that the plaintiffs had waived any claim of error regarding the lack of additional oral argument by failing to request it timely before the decision was rendered.

torts & liabilityprocedure