Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dick McClary submitted an application for health insurance to Golden Rule Insurance Company that failed to disclose proposed insured Patti Denney’s preexisting condition. Golden Rule issued a policy covering Denney, but later denied coverage for a proposed surgery based on the fact that the conditions documented in Denney’s medical records were not disclosed in her insurance application. The Kansas Insurance Department imposed sanctions on Golden Rule for unfair claim settlement practices, concluding that Golden Rule had wrongfully denied Denney coverage for a medically necessary procedure. The district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that McClary was not acting as Golden Rule’s soliciting agent when he submitted Denney’s health insurance application. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ decision on the agency question, as substantial evidence supported the conclusion that McClary had the actual authority to solicit and submit applications directly to Golden Rule; and (2) reversed the Department and the district court on their ruling that Golden Rule violated Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-2404(9)(f) but affirmed the finding of a violation of subsection (d); and (3) affirmed the Department’s remedy. View "Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. The district court found aggravating circumstances to impose a hard fifty life sentence on Defendant’s first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) certain statements made by the prosecutor, although arguably misconduct, were very mild and made in response to defense counsel’s argument; (2) any error in failing to provide a second-degree murder instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (4) in accordance with State v. Soto, Defendant’s hard fifty sentence was unconstitutionally imposed by the district court in violation of Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Roeder" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed the present pro se motion for postconviction relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in three distinct ways. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by denying Defendant’s 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing, as the motion, files, and records failed to show conclusively that Defendant was not entitled to relief. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding Defendant’s allegations. View "Sola-Morales v. State" on Justia Law

The Attorney General alleged that the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District exceeded his authority and contravened Kansas law by issuing an administrative order permitting marriage licenses to be issued to same sex couples. The Attorney General sought an order directing the Chief Judge and clerk of the district court to immediately cease from issuing marriage applications or licenses to same gender couples and an order vacating the Judge’s administrative order. The Supreme Court declined to grant the relief sought, as the Attorney General's right to relief on the merits was not clear, but granted the Attorney General’s alternative request for a temporary stay of the Chief Judge’s administrative order insofar as the order allows issuance of marriage licenses. The Court then requested additional briefing on the pending issues of whether the Chief Judge possessed authority to issue the administrative order and whether the interpretations and applications of the United States Constitution by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals are supreme and modify any Kansas state ban on same-sex marriage. View "State v. Moriarty" on Justia Law

Numerous class actions throughout the country were filed against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. by former and current delivery drivers for the company. Plaintiffs claimed they were improperly classified as independent contractors rather than as employees under both state and federal law. The class actions were consolidated, and the Kansas class action was designated as the lead case. A federal district court granted summary judgment for FedEx, determining that the Kansas class plaintiffs were independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). The district court relied on this decision to enter summary judgment for FedEx in all the other statewide class actions, concluding that Plaintiffs were independent contractors, rather than employees, under each respective state’s substantive law. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit certified to the Kansas Supreme Court questions regarding the proper classification of the FedEx drivers under the KWPA. The Supreme Court answered that, under the undisputed facts presented, the plaintiff delivery drivers were employees of FedEx for purposes of the KWPA. View "Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated interference with parental custody and disorderly conduct. The court of appeals found several trial errors, including two instances of prosecutorial misconduct and three jury instruction errors, but concluded that the errors did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated interference with parental custody and affirmed her conviction for disorderly conduct, holding (1) two of the trial errors, both of which related to Defendant’s defense of ignorance or mistake, warranted the reversal of Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated interference with parental custody; and (2) the prejudice Defendant suffered as a result of these errors did not taint her conviction for disorderly conduct, nor did any other claimed errors. View "State v. Ortega" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. After the sentencing judge found by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of four aggravating factors, Defendant received a hard fifty life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction. Defendant appealed, raising nine issues challenging his convictions and two challenging his sentences. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions, thus rejecting Defendant’s claims of reversible error; and (2) vacated Defendant’s sentence for first-degree murder, holding that Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States, was violated because the judge, rather than the jury, found the four aggravating factors existed and did so on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, rather than a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.View "State v. Hilt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. The sentencing court sentenced Appellant to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; (2) sufficient evidence supported the murder conviction; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial based on a juror’s statement mentioning gang involvement; and (4) because no errors were committed in this case, the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.View "State v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court denied Defendant his right under the Sixth Amendment to have the effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him when the court denied Defendant’s pro se motions for a new trial without first appointing new conflict-free counsel to assist Defendant in arguing the motions. Remanded for appointment of new counsel and instructions to hold a new holding on Defendant’s pro se motions for new trial.View "State v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

In 1996, Appellant was convicted of one count of felony murder and one count of aggravated battery. As part of Appellant’s sentence, the sentencing court ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $119,900. No restitution was ever collected from Appellant. In 2009, a private corporation sent Appellant a notice that he had outstanding court fines and that he had to pay $150,904 immediately. Appellant filed a pro se motion requesting release from the restitution order based on dormancy. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Appellant’s restitution was not yet due, reasoning that restitution cannot be enforced against a defendant while the defendant is incarcerated. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the district court did not enter an enforceable restitution judgment when it sentenced Appellant; and (2) because there was no pending judgment ordering Appellant to pay restitution, the district court had no jurisdiction to release an obligation on his part.View "State v. Alderson" on Justia Law