Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tenth-grader Jesus Rodriguez was injured while traveling to a soccer match in the bed of a pickup truck driven by a fellow student and teammate. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company had issued a policy to the Kansas State High School Activities Association, which administered various extracurricular activities in the state. Rodriguez’s mother (Plaintiff) filed a claim with Mutual of Omaha. Mutual of Omaha denied the claim, reasoning that the travel during which Rodriguez was injured did not qualify as covered under the policy. Plaintiff sued the school district, Mutual of Omaha, and other defendants. The district judge held that Mutual of Omaha should be dismissed as a defendant in the case because Rodriguez’s travel was neither authorized by the school district nor subject to reimbursement, the two requirements for “covered travel” under the definition in the Mutual of Omaha policy. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the travel involved in this case did not qualify as subject to reimbursement, and thus there was no coverage under the policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the travel during which Rodriguez was injured was “authorized” and “subject to reimbursement,” and therefore, there was coverage under the policy language. View "Rodriguez v. United Sch. Dist. No. 500" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, school districts and individuals, filed suit against the State, alleging, among other claims, that the State violated the Kansas Constitution by failing to provide a suitable education to all Kansas students. A district court panel concluded (1) the State violated Kan. Const. art. VI when the legislature underfunded K-12 public education between fiscal years 2009 and 2012; (2) the legislature failed to consider the actual costs of providing a constitutionally required education before making its funding decisions; and (3) the legislature withheld or reduced certain funding to which school districts were statutorily entitled. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) certain Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring some claims; (2) the panel did not apply the correct constitutional standard in determining that the State violated the Article 6 requirement of adequacy in public education; and (3) the State created unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities by (i) withholding all capital outlay state aid payments to which certain school districts were otherwise entitled, and (ii) prorating the supplemental general state aid payments to which certain districts were entitled. Remanded.View "Gannon v. State" on Justia Law