UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Board Of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996); retaliation against government contractor for protected speech as a violation of First Amendment
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984); establishing parameters for jury misconduct which would permit granting of new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL
How v. City of Baxter Springs, Kansas, 369 F.Supp.2d 1300 (2005), holding Kansas’ criminal defamation statute is constitutional
Anderson v. Cass County, 367 F.3d 741(8th Cir. 2004); holding that county deputies had probable cause to arrest bondsman and did not violate Equal Protection Clause
Smith v. Barber, 316 F.Supp.2d992 (2004), holding school and law enforcement officials acted appropriately reacting to report of Columbine-style conspiracy to attack high school
Worthington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 1339 (D.Kan. 2003), excluding fabric expert’s opinion as unreliable
McGee v. Broz, 251 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2001); holding that despite fact prosecuting attorney signed criminal complaint as complaining witness, prosecutor was entitled to rely on qualified immunity defense
Woodward v. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, 108 F.Supp.2d 1184, 2000 WL 1206628 (10th Cir. July 11, 2000); employee collaterally estopped from attacking state agency ruling in whistleblowing claim
Cragg v. City of Osawatomie, 143 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998); discussing terminated city police chief’s actions in connection with First Amendment challenge and breach of contract claim
Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1997); claims for compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury are not available under the ADA where there is no intentional discrimination shown
Duffee By and Through Thornton v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 91 F.3d 1410 (10th Cir. 1996); holding it is within power of appellate court to review evidentiary rulings on exclusion of scientific evidence when trial court grants motion for summary judgment
Thompson v. City of Lawrence, Kan., 58 F.3d 1511 (10th Cir. 1995); under a § 1983 action, police officers lose their shield of immunity only if the arrest is not based on probable cause; it is not unreasonable for officers to carry weapons and use some physical coercion to effect an arrest
Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 52 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 1995); discussing application of Kansas statutes of repose where harm was caused by prolonged exposure to defective product
Farthing v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, 39 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 1994); terminated fire chief had no property interest in continued employment
Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., 997 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 1993); determining right of product manufacturer to intervene for purpose of establishing nonliability
Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784 (10th Cir. 1993); establishing that a more liberal standard of probable cause for social workers did not apply to police officer investigating criminal sexual abuse and rejecting a qualified immunity defense
Hinton v. City of Elwood, Kansas, 997 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1993); determining that officer’s use of stun gun did not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation
Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286 (10th Cir. 1993); examining an inmates standing to contest the conditions at county jail, noting that a priest or chaplain does not need to be provided at county jail for every faith
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Public Water Supply Dist. No. 8 of Clay County v. City of Kearney, 401 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2005); upholding dismissal of claims by Water Supply District against municipality upon application of ripeness doctrine
Barker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 130 F.Supp. 1249 (D.Kan. 2001); summary judgment granted for defendant on plaintiff’s claim of termination in violation of ADA based upon a psychological evaluation regarding adult attention deficiency disorder adversely affecting his ability to accept criticism, concentrate, make decisions on his own without supervision, and function profitably without supervision. After the employer was absent from work for six months and received his psychological evaluation, the employer determined that he was not qualified for his former position and there were no other positions available for him. Summary judgment was granted on the ground that he was not “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA.
Wicks v. Riley Co. Bd. Of Co Com’rs & City of Manhattan, 125 F.Supp.2d 1282 (D.Kan.2000); holding that the plaintiff, following an automobile accident in which he claimed a low back strain that kept him off work several months and was subsequently terminated for poor performance, was not disabled within the meaning of ADA. The court held that he was not substantially limited in the major life activity of lifting, sitting, standing, or working. The plaintiff also failed to survive summary judgment on his claim for retaliation for pursuing a workers compensation claim.
Estate of Fuentes ex rel. Fuentes v. Thomas, 107 F.Supp.2d 1288 (D.Kan. 2000); finding no constitutional violation by officers involved in execution of search warrant, and finding a question of fact as to the reasonableness of the use of deadly force where a person was shot during the execution of the warrant
Bash v. City of Galena, Kan., 42 F.Supp.2d 1171 (D.Kan., Feb. 17, 1999); holding that a formerly employed police officer did not have a protected property interest in continued employment for the purposes of due process, that officer’s termination did not violate the equal protection clause, that the officer’s failure to meet residency requirements was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination, precluding his ADEA and KADEA claims, and that the officer failed to provide the city with notice as required by K.S.A. 12-105b which barred his state law retaliatory discharge claims
Pedro v. Armour Swift-Echrich, 118 F.Supp.2d 1155 (2000); discussing the application of the statute of limitations relation back doctrine and what issues are governed by state law and federal law
Whittaker v. Medical Mut. Of Ohio, 96 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D. Kan. 2000); discussing purposeful availment for the purposes of personal jurisdiction
Sports Unlimited, Inc. v. Lankford Enterprises, Inc., 93 F.Supp.2d 1164 (D. Kan. 2000); discussing elements of defamation, tortious interference with a prospective business advantage or tortious interference with contract, and commercial advertising claims
Apostle v. City of Roeland Park, 2000 WL 527810 (D. Kan. 2000); discussing the necessity of a dismissal as a sanction for attorney’s failure to answer interrogatories
Sump v. Clay County Conservation Dist., 2000 WL 134453 (D. Kan. 2000); discussing the factors of a voluntary dismissal
Palacios v. Anderton, 1999 WL 1332355 (D. Kan. 1999); granting summary judgment where the motion was uncontested due to plaintiff’s failure to respond
Dunegan v. City of Council Grove, Kansas Water Dept., 77 F.Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Kan. 1999);
finding two incidents of sexual harassment by supervisor to a city employee occurring nine months apart were not “sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Title VII and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD)”
Dunegan v. City of Council Grove, Kansas, 189 F.R.D. 649 (D. Kan. 1999); finding that the rules of evidence regarding sexual behavior and sexual predisposition apply to motions for summary judgment
Ratts v. Board of County Commissioners, 189 F.R.D. 448 (D. Kan. 1999); addressing the extent to which defendants in a sexual harassment action can discover other sexual conduct of plaintiff under FRE 412
Martel v. City of Newton, Kansas, 72 F.Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Kan. 1999); finding that a plaintiff must plead the Fifth Amendment takings clause when alleging city improperly condemned property
Ratts v. Board of County Com’rs, 1999 WL 965723 (D. Kan. 1999); denying plaintiff’s request for a protective order and ordered production of records because the plaintiff failed to show the excessive burden of answering defendant’s interrogatories
McCleary v. National Cold Storage, Inc., 67 F.Supp. 2d 1288 (D. Kan. 1999); holding that in order to establish a disability under the ADA, the impact of physical impairment on the ability to perform either a class of jobs or broad range of jobs must be shown
Buck v. B & W, Inc., 1999 WL 1007682 (D. Kan. 1999); precluding KDOT employee’s claim for injuries sustained when employee was called to an accident scene to conduct normal activities of police in that employee constituted a “borrowed employee” of the police under the Fireman’s Rule
In re Budig, 240 B.R. 397 (D. Kan. 1999); discussing what constitutes “willful and malicious” for purposes of discharging debt under Chapter 7
Sigg v. Board of County Com’rs, 1999 WL 588186 (D. Kan. 1999); finding that the negligent training, supervision, or retention of police officers falls within the police function exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act and rejecting §1983 deliberate indifference to training claim even though officer had not attended KLETC
Van Dulen v. City of Eudora, Kansas, 53 F.Supp. 2d 1223 (D. Kan. 1999); discussing prosecutorial immunity and elements needed to establish Fourth Amendment violations
Pearson v. City of Manhattan, 33 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1999 WL 98551 (D. Kan. 1999); discussing necessary elements of ADA
Romig v. City of Iola, 1998 WL 990611 (D. Kan. 1998); discussing whether alleged discriminatory acts are sufficient to establish a continuing violation under the ADEA so as to toll the statute of limitations
Froelich v. City of Newton, 60 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D. Kan 1999); granting summary judgment on claims of denial of equal protection, disposition of property without due process, outrage and abuse of process arising out of city’s enforcement of nuisance ordinances
Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 49 F.Supp.2d 1262 (D. Kan. 1999); granting defendant’s summary judgment after finding expert testimony inadmissible in matter where plaintiff farmer alleged that exposure to cattle larvicide caused injury to himself and to his children
Shepard v. City of Burlington, 1998 WL 240269 (D. Kan. 1998); rejecting plaintiff’s suit for compensation of time spent “on-call” and in briefings under the Fair Labor Standards Act because plaintiff’s movement after working hours was not unduly restricted and because briefing was part of plaintiff’s preliminary work activity
Associated Communications & Research Services, Inc. v. Kansas Personal Communications Services, 31 F.Supp.2d 949 (D. Kan. 1998); holding that a foreign corporation’s failure to pay state taxes may justify dismissal for lack of capacity to sue under Kansas statutes
Associated Communications & Research Services v. Kansas Personal Communications, 31 F.Supp.2d 1172 (1998); discussing a contractor’s action against an owner of a personal communication system license and the owner’s president, alleging breach of contract to construct system. The court found that there were issues involving contractual default by contractor and noncompliance with foreign corporation registration requirements and that the president was not liable for fraud or for any contractual breach because she was acting in her official capacity.
Becker v. United Methodist Youthville, Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 1284 (D. Kan. 1998); discussing what constitutes actionable hostile environment under Title VII
Martel v. City of Newton, Kan., 6 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D. Kan. 1998); granting summary judgment on prospective purchaser’s tort and constitutional claims against the city arising out of enforcement of its nuisance laws
Mayer v. Board of County Com’rs of Chase County, Kan., 5 F.Supp.2d 914 (D. Kan. 1998); finding that a director of emergency medical services claim for unpaid overtime was unfounded because he was exempt from overtime requirements as an employee in a bona fide administrative capacity
Fields v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 5 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Kan 1998); analyzing an employee’s action against his former employer and management employees for invasion of privacy and violation of state and federal wiretap statutes
Bartholomew v. City of Burlington, Kan., 5 F.Supp.2d 1161 (D. Kan. 1998); discussing former police officer’s action against a city, seeking overtime compensation under FLSA for time spent on-call and in briefings; and the officer’s claim of a due process violation of his property interest in continued employment
Stapp v. Overnite Transp. Co., 995 F.Supp. 1207 (D. Kan. 1998); discussing female employee’s action against employer alleging Title VII violations for disparate treatment based on her gender, hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation, and state law claims of outrage, assault and battery
Medina v. City of Osawatomie, 992 F.Supp. 1269 (D. Kan. 1998); holding that a television advertisement warning residents that some candidates for city council were convicted felons did not violate candidate’s right to political association or right to be a candidate
Hernandez v. City of Ottawa, Kan., 991 F.Supp. 1273 (D. Kan. 1998); discussing the establishment of a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII, where an applicant for a power plant operator position sued municipality when he was not hired
Fields v. Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 985 F.Supp. 1308 (D. Kan. 1997); addressing whether an employee had a right to recover for an invasion of privacy and violation of state and federal wiretap statues against his former employee
West v. City of Parsons, 983 F.Supp.1027 (D. Kan. 1997); finding that an officer and county attorney acted reasonably in executing a search warrant, despite the fact that the warrant was later found invalid because it was not supported by probable cause; they were also entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the § 1983 suit
Weber v. Ideker, Inc., 978 F.Supp. 1419 (D. Kan. 1997); discussing the venue provision under Title VII actions
Fitzgerald v. City of Ottawa, Kan., 975 F.Supp. 1402 (D. Kan. 1997); holding that the plaintiff’s claims were barred because they did not meet the diversity amount in controversy requirement
James v. USD 512, 959 F.Supp. 1407 (D.Kan. 1997); holding school district and its employees not liable for civil rights claims of student expelled from high school for possession of a hand gun on school property
Petty v. Board of County Com'rs of the County of Wyandotte, Kan., 957 F.Supp. 1207 (D.Kan. 1997); discussing the due process procedures for towing and selling of abandoned automobile
Koch v. Shell Oil Company, 173 F.R.D. 288 (D.Kan. 1997); holding that the Federal pesticide statute preempts state product liability claims
Britschge v. Harmison, 947 F.Supp. 435 (D.Kan. 1996); holding that a police officer’s single slap of arrestee did not constitute "excessive force" and was "objectively reasonable" at the time of the arrest
Dehart v. City of Manhattan, Kan., 942 F.Supp. 1395 (D.Kan. 1996); holding that a city employee had no property interest in continued employment for the purposes of due process
Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co., 914 F.Supp. 459 (D.Kan. 1996); analyzing insurance coverage for non-employee business associates
Whitmore v. O'Connor Management, Inc., 899 F.Supp. 425 (W.D.Mo. 1995); holding that the Federal District Court had no jurisdiction over unintentional Missouri state law tort claims, arising out of employment because the exclusive remedy is the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act
Cole v. Sharp, 898 F.Supp. 799 (D.Kan. 1995); discussing the scope of qualified and absolute immunity of sheriff and county attorney in civil rights lawsuit
Geddes v. Cox, 880 F.Supp. 767 (D.Kan. 1995); holding that the Eighth Amendment is not violated when medical care to prisoner was not immediate but responsive to actual medical needs of prisoner, and that mere verbal abuse does not rise to the level of a § 1983 violation
Kelley Metal Trading Co. v. Al-Jon/United, Inc., 877 F.Supp. 1478 (D.Kan. 1995); addressing the scope of liability for alleged failure of industrial product to comply with federal standards, resulting in consequential economic harm
Parsons v. Board of County Com'rs of Marshall County, Kan., 873 F.Supp. 542 (D.Kan. 1994); holding that the Eighth Amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" doctrine was not violated merely by speech alone
Malek v. Martin Marietta Corp., 859 F.Supp. 458 (D.Kan. 1994); holding that the plaintiff could not claim retaliatory discharge from plant where plant was closed for other economic reasons
Franz v. Lytle, 854 F.Supp. 753 (D.Kan. 1994); evaluating the appropriate award of attorney's fees to plaintiff's attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when there was only a $250.00 verdict for plaintiff on a $50,000.00 claim of unlawful search under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tomrell v. Leavenworth County, Kan., 845 F.Supp. 1454 (D.Kan. 1994); discussing the element of "confinement" in tort of false imprisonment
Fillmore v. Ordonez, 829 F.Supp. 1544 (D.Kan. 1993); discussing the necessity of probable cause for arrest and search and seizure
Swanson v. Fields, 814 F.Supp. 1007 (D.Kan. 1993); holding that a pre-trial diversion agreement is a "conviction" for purposes of barring a subsequent civil suit for malicious prosecution or false arrest
Griffith v. Mr. Carmel Medical Center, Physician Staffing Resources, Inc., et al., 809 F.Supp. 839 (1992); holding a corporation that recruited physician to work in hospital emergency room not liable under doctrine of respondeat superior for physician’s negligence
Dees v. Wilson, 796 F.Supp. 474 (D.Kan. 1992); determining that a law enforcement officer who arrests an individual pursuant to court order or warrant is not liable as a matter of law for execution of that order or warrant
Gutierrez v. Board of County Com'rs, Shawnee County, Kan., 791 F.Supp. 1529 (D.Kan. 1992); denying claims of racial discrimination and retaliatory discharge where plaintiff used "unnecessary force" against inmates
Franz v. Lytle, 791 F.Supp. 827 (D.Kan. 1992); evaluating the application of qualified immunity defense to police officer's claims of Fourth Amendment violations and violation of family's Fourteenth Amendment right to familial integrity and right to be free from governmental interference with peaceful enjoyment of property
Winkel v. Reserve Officer of City of Beloit, Kan., 773 F.Supp. 1487 (D.Kan. 1991); focusing on the accrual date of the statute of limitations in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful search and seizure and the absence of expectation of privacy of tavern owner in sale of cereal malt beverage in public tavern to underage undercover officer
Kutilek v. Gannon, 766 F.Supp. 967 (D.Kan. 1991); holding that members of State Board of Healing Arts and professional consultants are protected from a civil rights suit by absolute immunity
Skeet v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 760 F.Supp. 872 (D.Kan. 1991); considering whether the existence of an enterprise separate and distinct from the defendants, necessary to support a claim under the RICO statute, existed in a claim by purchaser of contact lens against seller
Elbrader v. Blevins, 757 F.Supp. 1174 (D.Kan. 1991); establishing that conviction of municipal court is conclusive proof of probable cause barring arrestee's subsequent civil rights claim based upon malicious prosecution or false arrest
Skeet v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 137 F.R.D. 347 (D.Kan. 1991); holding that a Federal Court cannot aggregate claims of plaintiffs to reach amount in controversy; class certification denied
Pierce v. Engle, 129 F.R.D. 187 (D.Kan. 1990); rejecting notice of appeal concluding that plaintiff's attorney's lack of familiarity with court rules did not constitute "excusable neglect" required to validate belated filing of notice
Hamel v. General Motors Corp., 128 F.R.D. 281 (D.Kan. 1989); declaring requirements for waiver of privilege of materials provided to expert witnesses
Drez v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 674 F.Supp 1432 (D.Kan. 1987); limiting long arm jurisdiction over employees of out-of-state corporations
Committee for Accurate Labeling and Marketing v. Brownback, 665 F.Supp. 880 (D.Kan. 1987); declaring a food labeling act unconstitutional
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. General Foods Corp., 654 F.Supp. 1074 (D.Kan. 1987); defining the legal standard for summary judgement on the issue of causation in a tort case
Ferguson v. Garmon, 643 F.Supp. 335 (D.Kan. 1986); upholding constitutionality of Kansas collateral source statute
Johnston v. United States, 568 F.Supp. 351 (D.Kan. 1983); involving government contract defense in product liability cases
Stueve v. American Honda Motors Co., Inc., 448 F. Supp. 167 (D.Kan. 1978); establishing comparative fault principles in strict liability cases
KANSAS APPELLATE COURTS
Perry v. Board of County Com’rs of County of Franklin, 281 Kan. 801, 132 P.3d 1279 (2006); holding County did not violate state statutes in reassigning payroll duties of county clerk
Myers V. Board of County Com’rs of Jackson County, 280 Kan. 869, 127 P.3d 319 (2006); granting summary judgment to County for failure to substantially comply with notice of claim statute
Little v. State, 34 Kan.App.2d 557, 121 P.3d 990 (2005); state bar association not a state agency for purposes of veteran’s preference statute
Stone v. U.S.D. No. 222, 278 Kan. 166, 91 P.3d 1194 (2004), holding land purchased by school district from railroad was acquired in fee simple absolute, and thus abandonment of right-of-way did not result in reversion of property to owners of adjacent land
Board of County Com’rs of County of Lincoln v. Nielander, 275 Kan. 257, 62 P.3d 247 (2003), holding sheriff, not board, had authority to appoint, promote, or dismiss deputy sheriff
Wilson v. Kansas State University, 273 Kan. 584, 44 P.3d 454 (2002), holding recreational use immunity applied to integral parts of recreational facilities, including restrooms
Glaser, by and through Glaser v. Emporia U.S.D. No. 253, 271 Kan. 178, 21 P.3d 573 (2001); holding that absent evidence that school assumed duty to protect or supervise student by affirmative act or promise, student could not recover in negligence action against district or its teacher
Wood v. Groh, 269 Kan 420, 7 P.3d 1163 (2000); holding that failure to instruct jury that gun owner and his wife owed the highest duty to protect public from misuse of handgun stored in home was prejudicial error
Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 268 Kan. 407, 997 P.2d 681 (2000); discussing attorney-client and work product exceptions to Kansas Open Records Act
Anderson v. Employers Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 27 Kan.App.2d 623, 6 P.3d 918 (2000); holding that insurer was not released of obligation to compensate the insured where under-insured motorist insurer failed to rebut presumption that a general release of liability executed by the insured with boilerplate regarding which parties were to be relieved of liability, released only the parties mentioned in the settlement agreement
Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 829, 974 P.2d 520 (1999); discussing sale barn operator’s malicious prosecution action against competitor and its attorney
Brock v. Richmond-Berea Cemetery District, 264 Kan. 613, 957 P.2d. 505 (1998); holding cemetery district immune for failure to make inspection or making negligent inspection of gravestone that crushed minor plaintiff
Schmidt v. HTG, Inc., 265 Kan. 373, 961 P.2d 677 (1998); discussing wrongful death and personal injury actions against restaurant owner and §1983 action against Department of Corrections and parole officer for the rape and murder of restaurant employee by a coworker conditionally released from prison
Woodruff ex rel. Woodruff v. The City of Ottawa, Kansas, 263 Kan. 557, 951 P.2d 953 (1997); finding in favor of the city in an action for wrongful death and personal injury as a result of the plaintiff’s car being struck by an automobile driven by a man under the influence of alcohol because the city was immune and the duty to arrest or detain the individual fell within the discretionary function exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act
Johnson v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 262 Kan. 185, 935 P.2d 1049 (1997); establishing statute of limitations for public employee pension claims
Gamblian v. City of Parsons, 261 Kan. 541, 931 P.2d 1238 (1997); holding that the Workers' Compensation Act does not apply to wrongful death claim against the SRS
Voth v. Coleman, 24 Kan.App.2d 450, 945 P.2d 426 (1997); establishing that a cause of action for malicious prosecution does not accrue until final day on which an appeal could have been filed in the original action
Sage v. Williams, 23 Kan.App.2d 624, 933 P.2d 775 (1997); holding that a notice of delinquent taxes by mail is not a violation of due process
Isnard v. City of Coffeyville, 260 Kan. 2, 917 P.2d 882 (1996); analyzing the statute of limitations for permanent non-abatable nuisances
Davidson v. Denning, 259 Kan. 659, 914 P.2d 936 (1996); holding that the "discovery rule" applies to a deadline for filing a wrongful death claim
Lanning v. Anderson, 22 Kan. App. Zd 474, 921 P.2d 813 (1996); establishing governmental immunity standard for school playground equipment
Fusaro v. First Family Mortg. Corp., Inc., 257 Kan. 794, 897 P.2d 123 (1995); applying abuse of discretion standard to punitive damage motions
Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499, 867 P.2d 303 (1994); abolished invitee and licensee categories in favor of reasonable care under all circumstances
Nichols v. Central Merchandise, Inc., 16 Kan.App. 2d 65, 817 P.2d 1131 (1991); establishing law concerning pharmacist’s duty to warn of potential consequences from use of prescription drug
Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Service, Inc., 246 Kan. 336, 789 P.2d 541 (1990); upholding constitutional validity of legislatively imposed caps on non-economic damages in personal injury cases
Barber v. Williams, 244 Kan. 318, 767 P.2d 1284 (1989); refining the scope of civil immunity of cities for the enforcement of ordinances
Ratterree v. Bartlett, 238 Kan. 11, 707 P.2d 1063 (1985); establishing rules for dealing with Mary Carter agreements
Chilson v. Capital Bank of Miami, Fla., 237 Kan. 442, 701 P.2d 903 (1985); concerning bank liability for unendorsed checks and the statute of limitations applicable to such transactions
Strehlow v. Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 232 Kan. 589, 659 P.2d 785 (1983); and General Foods Corp. v. Priddle, 569 F.Supp. 1378 (D.Kan. 1983); declaring unconstitutional statutory restrictions on the marketing of mixed dairy products under the filled milk dairy act
State of Kansas v. Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc., 232 Kan. 843, 659 P.2d 213 (1983); establishing the legality of games of chance in product advertising
Lester v. Magic Chef, 230 Kan. 643, 641 P.2d 353 (1982); establishing the consumer expectation test in product liability cases
Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289, 637 P.2d 1175 (1981); establishing limits on the scope of the tort of outrage
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 618 P.2d 788 (1980); discussing the applicability of comparative fault in product liability cases in Kansas
Brazelton v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 227 Kan. 443, 607 P.2d 510 (1980); concerning constitutionality of retroactive amendments to retirement plans
Hollinger v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital & Training School for Nurses, 2 Kan.App.2d 302, 578 P.2d 1121 (1978) (petition for review denied); establishing limits on liability of corporations for acts of employees
Koch v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co., 211 Kan. 397, 507 P.2d 189 (1973); addressing the public policy against insuring punitive damages
Grantham v. City of Topeka, 196 Kan. 393, 411 P.2d 634 (1966); establishing rules for liability of cities for street defects
MISSOURI APPELLATE COURTS
Brough v. Ort Tool and Die Corp., 149 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004); tool and die corporation’s disassembly and reassembly of machine was not manufacturing which would subject company to liability for defective functioning
White v. Camden County Sheriff’s Dept., 106 S.W.3d 626 (Mo.App. 2003); holding law enforcement officer entitled to absolute immunity in suit for damages when acting in compliance with court order
Hollinger v. Sifers, 122 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); upholding dismissal of action against non-resident physician on jurisdictional grounds
Stanley v. City of Independence, 995 S.W.2d 485 (Mo. banc 1999); holding that where police officer not physically involved in collision at conclusion of high-speed pursuit, requisite causal connection between pursuit and collision did not exist
Anderson v. Noel T. Adams Ambulance District, 931 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); finding that in determining application of "last exposure rule" for occupational diseases, time frame of employment, injury, and filing of claim are critical, and that if a workers compensation claimant had a pre-existing condition and if work related injury aggravated the condition, compensation may be awarded
Planet Ins. Co. v. Ertz, 920 S.W.2d 591 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); holding that where there are "excess insurance" clauses in the policies of different insurers who insure the same risk, they are mutually repugnant and, thus, require pro rata apportionment between the excess insurers
Bunker v. Ass'n of Mo. Elec. Co-op, 839 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); holding that in order to prove actionable negligence, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury, defendant's failure to perform that duty, and the injury proximately resulting from failure to perform the duty owed. The existence of a duty, for purposes of negligence action, is a matter of law and, is thus, a question for the court. The common denominator that must be present in a negligence action is the existence of a relationship between plaintiff and defendant that the law recognizes as a basis of a duty of care
