Wesley Ernest Brown

The ACLU sued Kansas officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to block enforcement of a 2011 statute (H.B. 2075) that bars insurance companies from covering elective abortions in standard health policies and requires any such coverage to be purchased via a separate rider with actuarially sound premiums. The suit alleged violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and sought a preliminary injunction. After a magistrate recommended denial for lack of evidence of irreparable harm, the district court conducted de novo review, applied the four-factor test for preliminary relief (likelihood of success, irreparable injury, balance of harms, and public interest), noted that the requested injunction would alter the status quo, and examined precedents such as Roe, Casey, and Maher v. Roe on state authority to regulate abortion funding and insurance. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required clear showing on the merits or irreparable harm and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

abortioncivil rightshealthcareprocedure

Kisor sued Advantage 2000 Consultants (A2K) under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act and Kansas Credit Services Organization Act, alleging improper practices in A2K's role providing Social Security representation and recouping overpayments from his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan issued by LINA/CIGNA. The court converted A2K's motion for judgment on the pleadings to one for summary judgment and granted it, holding that ERISA preempts the state-law claims because they relate to the enforcement of the plan's overpayment recoupment provisions, which serve ERISA's goal of protecting the economic stability of benefit plans for all participants. The court distinguished precedent allowing certain third-party state claims and denied Kisor's motion to strike but granted leave to amend the complaint to assert a claim under ERISA section 502.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal power

This case was a civil forfeiture action in which the United States sought to seize $21,055 in currency from claimant Timothy Yennemann after it was found during a commercial truck inspection in Kansas. The government contended the money was connected to drug trafficking and thus forfeitable under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), citing a positive alert by a drug-sniffing dog and the claimant's low reported income with no tax returns filed in recent years. Yennemann claimed the cash was lawfully obtained and that he was an innocent owner. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, concluding that the totality of the evidence—including the large amount of cash, the dog alert, and insufficient legitimate income sources—established by a preponderance that the currency was proceeds of or intended for use in violating the Controlled Substances Act.

criminal law

This case involves Northern Natural Gas Company's effort to confirm its authority to condemn property interests in the Viola and Simpson formations under approximately 9,117 acres in Pratt and Kingman Counties, Kansas, to expand its Cunningham Storage Field. Northern relied on a June 2010 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by FERC under the Natural Gas Act, which authorized the boundary expansion and acquisition of necessary rights. Landowner defendants opposed the motion, raising objections including Northern's diligence in identifying affected owners and the scope of interests sought. The court granted Northern's motion to confirm condemnation authority, finding that the FERC certificate provided the legal basis for eminent domain, that Northern had complied with procedural requirements such as notice and good-faith efforts to acquire interests voluntarily, and that the defendants' objections lacked merit under applicable rules and precedents.

propertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involves Northern Natural Gas seeking a preliminary injunction to halt L.D. Drilling and other defendants from operating gas wells in an expansion area adjacent to Northern's Cunningham Storage Field, on the grounds that the wells constitute a nuisance by producing migrated storage gas. The court granted the injunction, subject to conditions, after a hearing on the motion. Evidence presented, including gas composition analysis, seismic data, pressure records, and prior FERC findings, indicated that the defendants' wells were producing or had produced storage gas that migrated from the certified storage field. The pending related condemnation action by Northern to acquire property rights in the expansion area was noted as a significant factor in evaluating the injunction request under the Natural Gas Act and Kansas law.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case concerns insurance coverage disputes arising from an oil release by Coffeyville Resources, involving claims for property damage and associated clean-up costs under policies issued by Illinois Union (primary) and National Union (excess). The court addressed motions for reconsideration and certification for immediate appeal regarding prior rulings on policy interpretations, including the scope of coverage for clean-up costs under environmental laws versus property damage claims, and the exhaustion of National Union's $5 million self-insured retention (SIR). The court granted Coffeyville's motion in part, holding that payments from Liberty Surplus had exhausted the SIR, allowing National Union coverage to apply from the first dollar of additional qualifying losses not covered by Illinois Union; it denied National Union's motion for reconsideration and Illinois Union's request for interlocutory appeal. The reasoning centered on the unambiguous terms of the policies, the effect of prior payments on the SIR, and the determination that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation due to remaining factual issues on cost allocation.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty

This case arose from a 2007 flood of the Verdigris River that caused a large crude oil release from the plaintiff's refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas, resulting in extensive property damage and over $50 million in costs. The plaintiff sued its insurers for breach of obligations to indemnify under various liability insurance policies covering the incident. On multiple motions for summary judgment, the court addressed the parties' rights under the policies, applying Kansas rules of insurance contract construction to determine coverage for pollution-related losses. The court examined policy language on pollution conditions, exclusions for cleanup costs, and requirements for reasonable efforts to terminate discharges, ultimately resolving issues of whether coverage was triggered under the Illinois Union and National Union policies.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved Northern Natural Gas Company's request for a preliminary injunction to test four gas wells operated by Nash Oil & Gas, Inc., to determine whether they were producing Northern's stored natural gas that had migrated beyond the certified boundaries of its Cunningham Storage Field in Kansas. Northern based its claim on K.S.A. § 55-1210, which grants gas injectors the right to test wells on adjoining property. The court granted the injunction after concluding that the wells qualified as adjoining property because Northern held storage leases extending to the relevant sections, and that the claim was not barred by res judicata from prior litigation. It also denied Nash's request to stay the injunction pending appeal. The ruling allowed specified tests to assess gas ownership while directing the parties to cooperate on procedures.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case was an interlocutory appeal by the United States challenging a Bankruptcy Court ruling on the application of 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A) in the debtors' Chapter 12 proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court determined that capital gains taxes from the post-petition sale of real property used in the debtors' farming operation qualified for treatment as unsecured, non-priority claims. The District Court affirmed, concluding that the statutory exception applied to taxes incurred by the estate upon disposition of farm assets and aligned with the language and remedial purpose of the provision in Chapter 12 reorganizations.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case arose from a December 2006 rear-end collision on a Kansas highway in which plaintiff Thomas Stallings was injured by a semi-tractor/trailer driven by defendant Stuart Cohen; the tractor was titled to Cohen but the trailer was owned by defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc., and Cohen was operating under a lease with Werner. Plaintiff sued both defendants for negligence, alleging Cohen drove recklessly and that Werner was liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and entrustment, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Werner moved for partial summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim, arguing it lacked ownership of the tractor, and on related claims concerning hiring and punitive damages. Applying Kansas tort law, the court examined whether Werner’s lease-based control over the equipment and compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations could support an entrustment theory, addressed evidentiary disputes on Cohen’s prior driving record, and considered the standards for corporate liability for punitive damages.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit filed by Freebird, Inc., a royalty owner, against Merit Energy Co. in Kansas state court, alleging underpayment of royalties on oil and gas wells. Merit Energy removed the case to federal district court, claiming diversity jurisdiction for the individual claim and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act for the class claims. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional thresholds, as its supporting affidavit provided only total revenue figures without demonstrating how unpaid royalties would reach the required amounts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a product liability dispute in which plaintiffs Kevin and Diana Pekarek allege that an electric blanket manufactured by defendant Sunbeam Products caused a fire that damaged their home. Plaintiffs asserted claims including strict liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, negligence in design and manufacture, breach of warranties, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The court addressed several defense motions in limine to exclude expert testimony from William Cronenwett, Chris Komarek, and Reid Kress, as well as a motion for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to exclude the experts' opinions, finding some lacked sufficient reliability or factual basis while allowing others to proceed, and it dismissed the Consumer Protection Act claim on summary judgment but denied summary judgment on the remaining tort and warranty claims. The rulings were based on standards for expert admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the sufficiency of evidence regarding product defect versus alternative causes like misuse of matches.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Gloria A. Hill's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings, identifying four errors in the ALJ's analysis: reliance on incomplete medical reports in the administrative record, failure to properly consider Dr. Seifert's MMPI-2 test results and qualifications, inadequate evaluation of Dr. Brewer's opinions including their consistency with other evidence, and the resulting need to revisit steps two through four of the disability evaluation including the RFC findings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ did not apply correct legal standards or base findings on substantial evidence, requiring correction of these deficiencies before reassessing the claimant's impairments and ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involved Edward S. Money's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. The district court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's decision under the substantial evidence standard from 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and adopted the magistrate judge's findings that the ALJ had erred in the credibility analysis by inaccurately reporting MRI results, giving insufficient weight to medical testimony, and improperly discounting the claimant's pain allegations. The ALJ also rejected medical opinions without clearly identifying the supporting evidence and made residual functional capacity findings that were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

federal powerhealthcare

The case Tracy v. Astrue involved judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying Anita Tracy disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The core reasoning was that the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 96-8p by not linking the residual functional capacity finding to specific record evidence, disregarded medical opinions without seeking clarification, overlooked GAF scores, misstated the medical source statement, and required a fresh credibility assessment, though the finding on listed impairments was not erroneous.

federal powerhealthcare

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relators allege that Boeing and its subcontractor Ducommun submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the U.S. government for payment on aircraft and parts that contained nonconforming or defective components. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that it still lacked the particularity required by Rule 9(b) to identify specific false claims, the fraudulent scheme, and how defects led to improper certifications. The court denied the motions, finding that the expanded complaint now sufficiently alleges the circumstances of the alleged fraud, including particular contract specifications, types of documents submitted, and the roles of the parties, even if it does not identify individual invoices; allegations of knowledge and intent may be pled generally under the rules.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns claims by multiple plaintiffs against Jiffy Lube International, Inc. and affiliated entities alleging violations of consumer protection statutes, negligence, and unjust enrichment based on practices such as training employees to recommend unneeded services, making false statements about technician certifications and sales goals, using software to suggest services under severe driving conditions without proper inquiry, and imposing undisclosed environmental fees. The court ruled on motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), (6), and (7), granting Heartland's motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the claims of several individual plaintiffs entirely, and dismissing certain consumer protection claims regarding certifications, sales targets, and bonus programs while denying dismissal as to other claims. The core reasoning applied standards under Rule 9(b) for particularity in fraud allegations, choice-of-law rules such as lex loci delicti, and assessments of whether the complaints sufficiently stated claims under applicable state consumer protection laws and negligence theories.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

Tammy Taylor sued her former employer Home Depot claiming her 2005 termination violated an implied employment contract and was retaliation for reporting improper activities, with jurisdiction based on diversity. The court granted Home Depot's motion for summary judgment, finding no implied contract existed. Taylor had signed an acknowledgment form stating employment was at-will, could be terminated without cause, and could only be modified by a writing signed by the company president, with no such modification present. Interview discussions about longevity and career growth did not create a contractual restriction on at-will termination under Kansas law. The retaliation claim failed because the reported issues did not involve violations of laws affecting public health, safety, or welfare.

labor & employment

In Jamieson v. Vatterott Educational Center, Inc., former students sued a for-profit vocational school alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, claiming the school made false representations about course quality, faculty qualifications, accreditations, equipment, job placement rates, and post-graduation employment outcomes to induce enrollment at a cost of about $20,000 per student. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed breach of contract claims not tied to specific promises like hours of instruction, citing Kansas precedent that courts should not evaluate the efficacy of educational programs due to issues of causation, damages, subjectivity, and public policy. Claims under fraud and the KCPA were found insufficiently particular under Rule 9(b) and required amendment, while jurisdiction was undisputed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Brandon Rudkin sued Sedgwick County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for false imprisonment after he was arrested and held for about four and a half hours on a warrant issued for his identical twin brother Darren, who had previously used Brandon's identity and driver's license. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the federal claim. The court reasoned that a person detained pursuant to a valid warrant suffers no substantive due process violation when held for a reasonable time even after officers learn of the mistaken identity, citing Supreme Court precedent such as Baker v. McCollan. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure