Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Matthew Munoz, while held in the Mitchell County jail, attempted to invoke the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (MDDA) to address a pending theft charge in McPherson County. Munoz filed the request with the McPherson County District Court, but the Secretary of Corrections did not receive notice or issue a statutory certificate. The McPherson County Attorney, however, did have actual notice of the filing. The theft charge was not brought to trial within the 180-day period prescribed by the MDDA.The McPherson District Court ruled in favor of Munoz, finding that he had substantially complied with the MDDA and that the State was time-barred from prosecuting the theft charge. The State appealed this decision. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that there was insufficient evidence to show Munoz was in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) when he filed his MDDA request and that actual notice to the McPherson County Attorney did not constitute substantial compliance.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals. The court held that Munoz did not substantially comply with the MDDA because the Secretary of Corrections never received his request, and thus, the statutory 180-day clock never began to run. The court emphasized that the MDDA's requirements must be strictly followed unless prison officials' actions prevent compliance, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, reversed the district court's ruling, and remanded the case with directions to reinstate the theft charge against Munoz. View "State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

Patricia Nicholson filed a garnishment action after her husband was killed in an accident involving Ava Mercer, who was insured by Key Insurance Company. Key provided Mercer with an attorney but did not actively defend her. Nicholson attempted to settle for the policy limit, but Key delayed. Nicholson then filed a wrongful death suit, and Key offered to settle for the policy limit, which Nicholson rejected. Instead, Nicholson and Mercer agreed that Mercer would assign her rights to sue Key for bad faith to Nicholson, and Nicholson would not execute any judgment against Mercer. Mercer waived her right to a jury trial and did not present a defense. Nicholson won a $3 million verdict.The Leavenworth District Court ruled against Key on the merits, finding that Key acted in bad faith and ordered garnishment for the $3 million judgment. Key did not argue that garnishment was statutorily unavailable due to the assignment of rights at the district court level. On appeal, Key raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time, arguing that garnishment was impossible following an assignment of rights, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that subject-matter jurisdiction is the constitutional power of courts to decide disputes and does not disappear due to a flawed claim. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Nicholson's garnishment action on the merits. The court emphasized that Key's statutory arguments should have been presented as a motion to dismiss at the district court level and could not be raised for the first time on appeal under the guise of a jurisdictional argument. The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Mercer" on Justia Law

Kevin and Gretchen Higdon, residents of Missouri, opened a joint bank account in Missouri, which was later held by Equity Bank. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank obtained a judgment against Kevin in Missouri and sought to garnish the Higdons' account in Kansas to satisfy the judgment. The account was listed as "Joint (Right of Survivorship)" under Missouri law, which presumes a tenancy by the entirety for married couples, meaning the account could not be garnished for a judgment against only one spouse.The Johnson County District Court in Kansas denied the Higdons' motion to quash the garnishment, applying Kansas law, which does not recognize tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the account was a joint tenancy, allowing M & I Bank to garnish Kevin's half of the account. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, focusing on the procedural nature of garnishment under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the issue of account ownership was substantive, not procedural. The court applied the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which directs that the law of the state where the property interest was created (Missouri) should govern. Under Missouri law, the account was held as a tenancy by the entirety, and thus, M & I Bank could not garnish it for a judgment against Kevin alone.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case with directions to return the garnished funds to the Higdons, holding that Missouri law applied to the ownership of the account, preventing the garnishment. View "M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon" on Justia Law

Benchmark Property Remodeling, LLC, a construction company, performed remodeling work on a building owned by Grandmothers, Inc., which was leased to the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR). The work was based on quotes finalized between KDOR and Benchmark, and a "Third Amendment to Lease" between KDOR and Grandmothers. Benchmark completed the work and invoiced Grandmothers and KDOR. KDOR paid Grandmothers, but Grandmothers only partially paid Benchmark, withholding some amounts for various reasons. Benchmark sued Grandmothers, KDOR, and others for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims.The Shawnee District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Grandmothers on several claims, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers. The court also granted KDOR's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Benchmark then dismissed its remaining claims without prejudice and appealed the partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that appellate jurisdiction was proper because Benchmark did not refile its dismissed claims, making the district court's judgment final. The panel reversed the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings for KDOR, noting significant factual issues regarding the parties' intent. The panel also reversed the district court's summary judgment for Grandmothers, finding that the evidence could support a finding of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the district court's partial summary judgment became final with the dismissal of the remaining claims, thus granting appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of a contract, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Benchmark Property Remodeling v. Grandmothers, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a Kansas law, S.B. 95, which effectively bans a common method of second-trimester abortion known as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E), except when necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. The law was challenged by doctors who perform D & E abortions in Kansas, arguing that it violates the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.The district court granted a temporary injunction, concluding that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas. The Supreme Court affirmed the temporary injunction, ruling that the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and that any government infringement of that right must withstand strict scrutiny. The case was remanded to the district court to apply this standard.On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the doctors, holding that the law does not withstand strict scrutiny and consequently violated the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State failed to show that the law is narrowly tailored to further any compelling interest. The court struck down the law as an unconstitutional violation of section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "Hodes v. Kobach" on Justia Law

The case involves David Moeller, who was convicted of securities fraud after deceiving an acquaintance into investing $9,500 in a non-existent business. Moeller appealed his conviction, but died during the appeal process. The Court of Appeals, applying the precedent set in State v. Hollister, ruled that Moeller's death did not render his appeal moot and affirmed his conviction and sentence. Moeller's defense counsel petitioned for review, arguing that the court should overrule Hollister and that the panel erred in concluding his conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court. The court held that under the doctrine of stare decisis, it would continue to adhere to Hollister, which establishes that the death of a criminal defendant during the appeal of his or her conviction does not automatically abate the appeal but may render some issues moot. The court found that Hollister was not originally erroneous and that more good than harm would come from adhering to it. The court also held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Moeller's conviction for securities fraud. The court concluded that Moeller's conduct constituted fraud or deceit and that the transaction between Moeller and the victim involved the sale of a security in the form of an investment contract. View "State v. Moeller" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of a purebred show dog named Oscar. The parties involved are Oscar's breeder, Elizabeth "Betsy" Shauck, and Dave Jennings and Emily McLeod, who have raised Oscar since he was a puppy. Dave and Emily filed a petition to quiet title to Oscar against Betsy, who counterclaimed for breach of contract, replevin, conversion, for a restraining order and preliminary injunction, and to quiet title. Betsy's preliminary injunction counterclaim asked the district court to prevent Dave and Emily from harboring Oscar and to order his immediate return to her.The district court held a three-day hearing, which was supposed to be on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction. However, the court expanded the scope of the hearing and made findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of all issues pending in the underlying lawsuit, including Oscar's ownership, contract disputes, and damages. Dave and Emily appealed this decision, arguing that the district court denied their due process rights by deciding the case on the merits when it had only set the hearing on Betsy's preliminary injunction.The Kansas Court of Appeals panel held that the district court violated Dave and Emily's due process rights by expanding the scope of the hearing without notice. However, instead of remanding the case, the panel analyzed the parties' ownership interests in Oscar and held that Dave and Betsy co-owned Oscar. Betsy then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas for review.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the panel. The court agreed with the panel that the district court erred by expanding the scope of the hearing on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the district court's decision to consolidate the hearing on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the case's merits without informing the parties was a denial of due process and an error of law. The court also agreed with the panel's conclusion that the district court's failure prejudiced Dave and Emily. However, the court held that the panel erred by addressing the case's merits after correctly concluding that the district court erred. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jennings v. Shauck" on Justia Law

Tracey Murray and the Estate of Robert Murray filed a lawsuit against Miracorp, Inc., NTTS, Inc., Lane Goebel, and Shane Goebel, alleging both legal and equitable claims based on conduct that took place before 2012. The Murrays claimed that they were shareholders in Miracorp and that the company and its officers had breached fiduciary duties, committed fraud, and unjustly enriched themselves at the Murrays' expense. The Murrays also alleged that Miracorp had converted their property and misappropriated trade secrets.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Miracorp, ruling that the Murrays' claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court found that the Murrays' injuries were reasonably ascertainable in 2011, and thus, the period for filing a lawsuit had expired. The Murrays appealed this decision.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Murrays' claims were time-barred because their injuries were reasonably ascertainable in 2011. The court held that the Murrays had waited too long to investigate and seek redress for their injuries.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that the Murrays had a duty to reasonably investigate their suspicions in 2011. The court found that the Murrays did nothing to investigate their suspicions until 2016, which was unreasonable. As a result, the court ruled that the Murrays' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. View "Murray v. Miracorp, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas has upheld the decision of the lower courts in a case involving a plaintiff, Jason Unruh, who alleged that the City of Wichita police officers used excessive force during his arrest. The plaintiff was apprehended after leading police on a car chase and was subsequently subdued while attempting to collect drugs that had spilled onto the ground. Nearly 23 months later, the plaintiff sued for personal injuries, alleging that the officers negligently used excessive force during his arrest. The case focused on whether the plaintiff's claim was for civil battery, which has a one-year statute of limitations, or negligence, which has a longer time limit. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was essentially a battery claim since the officers intentionally used force to make a lawful arrest. The court further clarified that negligence and battery are distinct legal concepts with different elements. The court noted that a negligence claim requires proof of a legally recognized duty that the defendant breached, causing the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff failed to establish that the officers owed him a special duty independent of the force used. As such, the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for battery. The court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts. View "Unruh v. City of Wichita" on Justia Law

In this consolidated workers compensation appeal arising from disputes between EagleMed, LLC, a critical care transportation service, and Travelers Insurance, a workers compensation insurance carrier, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment directing the Workers Compensation Appeals Board to dismiss this proceeding, holding that remand was required.49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1) prohibits states from enacting or enforcing any law related to a service of an air carrier providing air transportation. Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-510i(c)(2) requires the Director of the Division of Workers Compensation to oversee health care provider services to ensure charges are "fair, reasonable, and necessary." At issue was the phrase "usual and customary charges." The Board decided it lacked jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of air ambulance charges that would reduce the amount owed, made no factual determination whether the disputed billings were "usual and customary charges," and ordered Travelers to pay in full. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the panel's decision and the Board's order that Travelers pay EagleMed in full and remanded the case for the Board to decide whether the charges were "usual and customary," holding that the Board will need to interpret this term in a manner reflecting both federal law and the state's legislative purposes. View "EagleMed v. Travelers Insurance" on Justia Law