Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While driving his vehicle within the boundaries of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's (Nation) reservation, Appellant, an enrolled member of the nation, was arrested for operating a vehicle while under the influence. The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR) subsequently suspended Appellant's Kansas driver's license based on Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567a, which prohibits any person less than twenty-one years of age from operating a vehicle in the state with a blood alcohol content of .02 or greater. Upon judicial review of the suspension order, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of KDR. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over any civil matter arising from the incident, and the KDR acted outside the scope of its authority in this case. Remanded with directions to order the reinstatement of Appellant's driver's license. View "Rodewald v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) claimed several gas and energy companies (collectively, ONEOK and Lumen) wrongfully converted natural gas by purchasing gas from two producers (collectively, Nash and L.D.), which operated wells on land near Northern's underground natural gas storage field. ONEOK and Lumen filed third-party identification claims against Nash and L.D. Nash and L.D., in turn, asserted various claims against Northern, ONEOK, and Lumen. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nash and L.D. on the third-party identification claims, concluding that Northern lost title to its migrating storage gas, and thus, Nash and L.D. had title to the gas produced by wells located beyond property adjoining the certificated boundaries of Northern's gas storage field and purchased by ONEOK and Lumen. Before the court journalized its order, Northern expanded the certificated boundaries of its storage field, bringing the wells at issue within the expansion area. The district court denied Northern's motion to modify its summary judgment ruling but limited its ruling to matters prior to June 2, 2010. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that by application of the rule of capture, Nash and L.D. possessed title to the gas produced from their wells before June 2, 2010. View "N. Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, capital murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, requesting that his capital murder conviction be reversed because the complaint did not list the names of both individuals whose deaths served as the basis for the capital murder charge. The district court summarily denied Defendant's petition. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the summary denial of Defendant's motion because a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 cannot be used to collaterally challenge a conviction; and (2) denied Defendant's request to treat the motion as a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of rape of a child under fourteen years of age and one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting (1) evidence of his previous conviction for attempted aggravated incest of his daughter under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455, and (2) a videotaped interview in which Defendant contended detectives implied he was not being truthful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's previous conviction for attempted aggravated incest, but the error was harmless; and (2) Defendant's second argument was not properly before the Court. View "State v. Longstaff" on Justia Law

Decedent created an inter vivos revocable trust. Until her death, Decedent served as the trust's sole trustee. At Decedent's request, Attorney drafted the trust documents and a pour-over will. Bank was named successor trustee of Decedent's trust. After Decedent died, the personal representative (Representative) of Decedent's estate sued Attorney and Bank. Against Attorney, the petition alleged claims of negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty and contract based on the alleged failure of Defendants to protect Decedent's assets from tax liability. The district court granted Defendants' motions of summary judgment. Specifically, the court held that Representative's tort claims for legal malpractice did not survive Decedent's death. The court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Attorney. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Representative's cause of action did not accrue until after Decedent's death, it did not qualify as a survival action under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1801 and was therefore barred. View "Jeanes v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated battery. Counts I and II were a violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 3414(a)(2)(A) and Count III was a violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 3414(a)(2)(B), which prohibits "recklessly causing bodily harm...to another person with a deadly weapon, or in any manner whereby great bodily harm, disfigurement or death can be inflicted." Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in requiring Defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his use-of-force was justified in defense of others or property other than a dwelling pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3219, but this error was harmless; (2) the Kansas Legislature did not state alternative means of committing aggravated battery under the aggravated battery statute; (3) the district court did not err by giving a unanimity instruction; and (4) while the district court may have erred in denying Defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses regarding why they did not honor their subpoenas, the error was harmless. View "State v. Ultreras" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, attempted rape, and criminal possession of a firearm. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court determined that Appellant would participate by telephone at the evidentiary hearing and refused to allow him to physically appear at the hearing. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. A majority of the court of appeals panel reversed, holding that Appellant had to be physically present for the proceedings and that the district court had no discretion to order otherwise. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals because its decision stripped district courts of the discretion they lawfully have; but (2) reversed the district court's judgment because the record on appeal was inadequate for the Court to conclude whether the district court abused that discretion. Remanded. View "Fischer v. State" on Justia Law

After Ian Burch's motor home was stopped by a highway patrol trooper, the trooper found drugs, drug paraphernalia, and $15,000 in cash in the vehicle. The State filed criminal charges against Burch. The district court found the trooper had unlawfully extended the scope and length of the stop and suppressed the evidence found in the vehicle. The charges against Burch were later dismissed. The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) subsequently issued a tax assessment notice indicating Burch owed $17,761 in taxes and penalties on the drugs found in his motor home. The Court of Tax Appeals (COTA) granted summary judgment to KDOR on its assessment of taxes and civil penalties against Burch under the Kansas Drug Tax Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that COTA erred in granting summary judgment to KDOR because it failed to consider and apply the exclusionary rule to the drugs upon which the taxes were assessed. Remanded to COTA for consideration of the exclusionary rule. View "In re Tax Appeal of Burch" on Justia Law

Defendant and Plaintiff were in a long-time, same-sex relationship, during which they had two children via artificial insemination. In conjunction with the birth of each child, the couple executed a coparenting agreement that addressed the contingency of a separation. After the couple separated, Defendant notified Plaintiff that she was taking the children to Texas. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action seeking to enforce the coparenting agreement. The district court's final order divided the parties' property, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the two children, designated Defendant as the residential custodian, established unsupervised parenting time for Plaintiff, and ordered Plaintiff to pay child support. The Supreme Court held (1) because the coparenting agreement was enforceable, the district court had the discretion to make appropriate orders addressing child custody, reasonable parenting time, and child support; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the court's determination that its custody and parenting time orders were in the best interests of the children; and (3) the court should have conducted an asset-by-asset analysis under Eaton v. Johnson regarding division of the parties' property. Remanded. View "Frazier v. Goudschaal" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine and violation of a protection order. The State elicited evidence of multiple acts that would support the violation of a protection order charge, but it failed to elect one particular act upon which the jury could rely. The district court did not give the jury a unanimity instruction requiring it to agree on the particular act that would support a conviction on the protection order charge, nor did Defendant request a unanimity instruction or object to its omission. The court of appeals affirmed, finding the unanimity error to be harmless because Defendant presented a unified defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure to give a unanimity instruction was not clearly erroneous under the facts of this case. View "State v. Trujillo" on Justia Law