David Prager

The case was a declaratory judgment action by medical malpractice victims challenging 1986 Kansas House Bill 2661, which capped total damages in malpractice actions at $1,000,000, limited noneconomic damages to $250,000, and required future economic losses to be paid via annuities owned by the Health Care Stabilization Fund. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the cap and annuity provisions violated Sections 5, 18, and 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights. The court reasoned that the limits infringed on the right to jury trial by restricting the jury's fact-finding role on damages, denied plaintiffs a full remedy for injuries, and lacked a rational basis under equal protection principles given the nature of the restrictions imposed.

torts & liabilitycivil rightshealthcare

This case involved a 67-year-old woman who fell and was injured in an unlit stairwell at a University of Kansas dormitory while visiting her granddaughter, a resident student. The district court granted summary judgment to the university defendants, ruling that the plaintiff was a licensee owed only a duty to avoid wanton or reckless conduct, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the university-student rental agreement created a lessor-lessee relationship that imposed a duty of reasonable care to maintain common areas like the stairwell in safe condition under the common area exception to premises liability rules. The court reasoned that this duty extends to visitors using the premises in the intended manner when the owner retains control over shared spaces, and remanded for consideration of comparative fault issues.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by landowner L. Frank Dougan and his farm tenants against the Rossville Drainage District for crop damage and flooding on their property outside the district, allegedly caused by the district's construction and operation of dikes, embankments, and a drainage ditch that diverted water into a natural watercourse beyond its capacity. The district moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under the discretionary function exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A. 75-6104(d)). The district court denied the motion, and on interlocutory appeal the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exception does not apply because a governmental entity has no discretion to violate legal duties owed to adjacent landowners by altering natural water flows in ways that cause flooding damage. The court reasoned that recognizing such immunity would nullify the purpose of the Tort Claims Act and relied on prior precedent rejecting claims of discretionary authority to harm outside property owners without compensation or authorization. The case was remanded for trial on the factual issues of causation and damages.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved the acquittal of defendant Lloyd D. Clothier on a charge of involuntary manslaughter after he fired warning shots from a revolver that killed 15-year-old Seanan Picard, who had broken into Clothier's parked car at night. The State appealed on a question reserved, challenging jury instructions that permitted the use of force in defense of a dwelling or other property without requiring imminent danger to human life. The court held that the instructions accurately reflected K.S.A. 21-3212 and 21-3213 and that the trial court did not err in giving them. The core reasoning was that the Kansas legislature had intentionally omitted common-law limitations on deadly force for property defense, leaving reasonableness for the jury to decide, and that federal Fourth Amendment precedent on police shootings does not govern private criminal defenses.

criminal lawproperty

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Christina Rood against Kansas City Power & Light Company after she was struck by a 35-pound metal spool that fell from a moving company truck trailer while she walked on an adjacent sidewalk. A jury awarded Rood $2,000 in damages, but she appealed the trial court's exclusion of certain medical bills, including one from Dr. Alvarez for treatments related to her injuries, on grounds that no proper foundation had been laid for their reasonableness or necessity. The court addressed whether the bills were admissible under Kansas law requiring medical expenses to be necessary and reasonable, with such questions typically reserved for the jury, and considered the sufficiency of testimony from other physicians linking the treatments to the accident. It also examined the propriety of using additur to increase an allegedly inadequate verdict when evidence had been excluded. The court ultimately applied principles allowing correction of judgments based on excluded evidence and permitted additur in this context.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Bertha Draskowich against the City of Kansas City and its Board of Public Utilities for damage to her car from an accident caused by ice on a city street formed after a water main break. The plaintiff claimed negligence in failing to warn westbound drivers of the icy conditions, while the city filed a counterclaim for damage to a light pole hit by her vehicle. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the ice resulted from the city's affirmative acts during water line repairs rather than natural weather conditions, so the city was not immune under the Kansas Tort Claims Act snow-and-ice exception. The court further held that the lack of warnings in the westbound lanes, combined with the city's delay in sending a sand truck despite multiple requests and prior knowledge of the ice, supported the finding that the city's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

torts & liability

This case involved the conviction of Tim Strayer for possession of marijuana with intent to sell after Customs officials used a court-authorized transponder to track a plane carrying 827 pounds of the drug, which Strayer was unloading at a Kansas airstrip. Strayer appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and statements, claiming violations of his Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause for the transponder installation and related tracking, along with issues regarding jury tampering and sentencing without counsel present. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that Strayer had no standing to challenge the transponder on the plane he did not own, that the affidavits established probable cause, and that the trial court properly handled all other matters without prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a teacher suing his school district for wrongful termination of his contract and denial of due process after he attended a student science fair without superintendent approval, in violation of his employment agreement, and separately suing the superintendent for tortious interference with the contract. The district court ruled for the defendants in both actions, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the board's termination decision and hearing process satisfied statutory requirements under K.S.A. 72-5437 et seq. without violating due process, even accounting for procedural steps like the hearing committee's composition and timing.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Fox, the State charged two defendants with single counts of felony unemployment fraud under K.S.A. 44-719(a) for submitting multiple false continued claim cards that resulted in aggregated overpayments exceeding $150, even though each individual payment was under that threshold. The district court dismissed the felony complaints, ruling that the single larceny doctrine did not apply and that the defendants should instead face multiple misdemeanor counts. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the single larceny doctrine may apply to aggregate the amounts if the acts stem from a single larcenous impulse or plan, that this is a factual question for the jury rather than a matter of law for pretrial dismissal, and that the proper charging method is a felony count with alternative misdemeanor counts. The court remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with this approach, relying on Kansas precedents treating the doctrine as applicable to series of thefts from a single scheme.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Ronald Denton against his employer Sunflower Electric Cooperative after he injured his back at work, with the employer seeking to shift liability for the award to the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Fund based on Denton's preexisting back condition. The district court and Court of Appeals upheld an award assessed entirely against the Fund, and the Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether K.S.A. 44-567(b) requires an employer to prove it had a mental reservation about hiring or retaining the handicapped employee to obtain relief from liability. The court affirmed the judgments below, holding that the statute requires only proof that the employer had knowledge of the preexisting impairment at the time of hiring or retained the employee after acquiring such knowledge, and that any prior cases suggesting a mental reservation requirement were erroneous. The court further determined that a 1987 legislative amendment to the statute did not alter these requirements.

labor & employment

In State v. Micheaux, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of welfare fraud for obtaining $756 in cash assistance by submitting false income reports to the state agency. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the charging information was fatally defective because it omitted the element of intent to permanently deprive the owner of property required under the general theft statute. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that welfare fraud under K.S.A. 39-720 constitutes an independent offense that is complete upon obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance through a willfully false statement or fraudulent device, without any need to allege or prove the permanent-deprivation intent from K.S.A. 21-3701. The court concluded that the information, which tracked the statutory language, adequately informed the defendant of the charge and allowed for a double-jeopardy plea, and it overruled a conflicting prior appellate decision.

criminal lawprocedure

Georgia Armstrong, an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement with Goldblatt Tool Company that allowed discharge only for just cause and provided a grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration, sued the employer for retaliatory discharge in tort after allegedly being barred from returning to work following settlement of her workers' compensation claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an employee whose employment is governed by such a collective bargaining agreement cannot maintain an independent state tort action for retaliatory discharge and must instead pursue remedies under the contract. The court reasoned that its prior decision in Cox v. United Technologies controlled, because the agreement adequately protected the employee from discharge without just cause, unlike at-will employees who may bring such tort claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a 92-year commercial lease of undeveloped land in Wichita, Kansas, where Bonanza, Inc., as lessee, sought a declaratory judgment affirming the lease's validity along with damages for breach after developing a shopping center on the property. The lessor's successor, E.A. McLean, filed counterclaims challenging the lease's validity following disputes over rent calculations and zoning changes for additional uses like mini-warehouses. The trial court granted Bonanza summary judgment on all counterclaims and, after a bench trial, awarded $63,694 in damages for breach. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the lease implied a duty on the lessor to support the intended commercial development and to refrain from actions that would prevent the lessee from realizing its benefits, which McLean's challenges violated, and that competent evidence supported the damages from project delays. Relevant topics include property law and business contracts in a commercial context.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved defendant Mark R. Maas, who was convicted by a jury of aggravated kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, terroristic threat, and criminal trespass arising from two incidents in which he assaulted and abducted his former girlfriend using a gun and handcuffs. The defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a speedy trial under K.S.A. 22-3402 was violated because he was not tried within 90 days of arraignment and that the trial court improperly issued an ex parte order requiring him to submit to mental examinations by the state's experts after he raised an insanity defense. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial delays were properly granted due to the defendant's notice of intent to rely on insanity, the resulting need for evaluations, and continuances for good cause, and that by filing the insanity notice the defendant had consented to court-ordered mental examinations under K.S.A. 22-3219. The court rejected the claim that an ex parte order violated the defendant's rights, as the statute and the defendant's own filing explicitly authorized such orders without further hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co., a large industrial natural gas customer, seeking judicial review of a Kansas Corporation Commission order that addressed a municipal franchise agreement between the Gas Service Company and the City of Pittsburg and required revised tariffs to eliminate a perceived discriminatory rate structure in franchise taxes. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and Dickey Clay appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Dickey Clay lacked standing under K.S.A. 77-611 because it had not been a party to the agency proceedings and had not intervened, and that it had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by K.S.A. 77-612. The court reasoned that mere attendance at a hearing without formal participation or intervention did not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for judicial review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a former county highway employee who sued the Board of County Commissioners of Clay County for damages after his termination, which the county attributed to budget shortfalls and lack of revenue sharing funds. The employee asserted tort claims based on alleged violations of Kansas cash-basis and budget laws, public policy, and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in his at-will employment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the tort claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the statutes were intended to protect the public at large rather than create a private right of action for individuals, and that Kansas law does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith in public-sector at-will employment contracts. The decision rested on statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and controlling precedent regarding employment relationships.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved two former Coleman Company employees who sued the company and two supervisors for wrongful discharge, claiming breach of an implied employment contract by terminating them without good cause and in bad faith, plus tortious interference with contract rights by the supervisors. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed on the implied contract and tortious interference claims after reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the company's disseminated personnel policies and supervisor manuals created an implied contract requiring good cause for termination, and whether the firings—allegedly motivated by one employee's personal relationship with the other—violated any such contract or occurred in bad faith. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff suing a defendant and others for breach of an oral contract in the sale of real estate adjacent to her homestead, where the buyer allegedly promised to build a small medical building to preserve her peaceful enjoyment, with later owners constructing a larger non-compliant building. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the claim was barred by the statute of frauds. The court reasoned that the undisputed facts showed no basis for promissory estoppel or other exceptions, as the plaintiff was represented by a realtor, no trust relationship existed, and the oral promise was not included in the written contract despite opportunities. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding judge assignments and prior denials of summary judgment motions, finding no error in the reassignment or reconsideration.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned the priority of mortgage liens on real estate between the First National Bank in Wichita, holder of a 1977 mortgage with a dragnet clause, and Robert H. Souders, holder of a later 1979 mortgage on the same property. The district court ruled that only the unpaid balance of the Bank's original 1977 loan had priority over Souders' mortgage, with the Bank's 1983 and 1984 loans subordinate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the later loans were secured by the 1977 mortgage because each note specifically referenced it on its face, and under K.S.A. 58-2336 and precedent such as Lygrisse, the Bank's liens therefore had priority up to the principal amount of the 1977 mortgage from the date of its recording.

property

This case involved defendant Ithiel Lawton, who was charged with two counts of aggravated battery against law enforcement officers and one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer after firing a shotgun at police responding to a domestic disturbance at his parents' home, wounding two officers. Lawton waived a jury trial and raised an insanity defense based on his long history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and multiple hospitalizations, presenting expert testimony from a psychologist and psychiatrist. The trial court found Lawton legally sane at the time of the offenses, convicted him, and imposed suspended sentences with commitment to a state hospital. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the sanity finding because Lawton understood the nature and wrongfulness of his acts, the presumption of sanity was not overcome, and the question of insanity was a factual issue properly resolved by the trial judge despite conflicting expert opinions. The court compared the facts to prior precedents where similar mental illness claims did not compel an insanity verdict as a matter of law.

criminal law