TOPEKA—A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments July 19 and 20, at the Sherman County Courthouse, 813 Broadway, Goodland.
Judges G. Joseph Pierron, Jr., Lawrence; Patrick D. McAnany, Overland Park; and Steve Leben, Fairway, will hear oral argument in seven civil and criminal cases at dockets that convene at 9 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 19, and at 9 a.m. Wednesday, July 20. The three-judge panel will also decide 10 cases without argument based on the parties' written submissions.
After each docket session, the judges will be available to answer questions from the public about the court and court procedures.
Leben, the presiding judge for the panel, said that the Court of Appeals regularly hears cases throughout the state.
"We have hearings almost every month in Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City," he said. "But we also visit other parts of the state so that our court is accessible to the people."
Leben added that in addition to making the court accessible to more Kansans, hearing cases around the state saves money for the parties.
Oral Arguments
Attorneys for each side will have an opportunity to present argument to the judges, and the judges will have a chance to ask questions. The court will then take each case under consideration and will issue a written decision at a later date, usually within about 60 days.
The appeals to be heard in Goodland arose in Finney, Haskell, Ness and Norton counties. In addition to the Court of Appeals panel hearing cases this week in Goodland, other three-judge panels of the Court of Appeals will be hearing cases in Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City. All hearings are open to the public.
There are 14 judges on the Court of Appeals, and the judges sit in three-judge panels to decide cases. In fiscal year 2015, the Court of Appeals resolved appeals in 1,978 cases, including 1,340 in which the court issued a formal written opinion.
The seven cases to be heard in Goodland are summarized as follows:
9 a.m. Tuesday, July 19, 2016
No. 113,883: State of Kansas v. James Lee Foster, appeal from Norton County
A jury convicted James Foster of burglary of a dwelling and theft, after he allegedly stole two laptops from a rented room in a house. On appeal, Foster argues the district court erred when it bound him over for trial on the burglary charges, arguing the state had failed to show that he had entered the dwelling without authority because he had the homeowner's permission to be in the house generally and a rented room in a house is not a separate dwelling. He also contends there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict him of burglary because the state failed to present evidence that he lacked authority to enter the room or that he had the intent to commit a theft. Finally, he asserts the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the state to amend the complaint at trial.
No. 113,468: State of Kansas v. Loren Malik Wiseman, appeal from Finney County
In December 2014, a man approached Loren Wiseman and his girlfriend while they were in their car in a parking lot and began demanding Wiseman fight him and threatening to harm them. Wiseman pulled out a gun, warned the man to leave, and counted down twice before he shot the man, who died from his injuries. The state charged Wiseman with first-degree, premeditated murder, but Wiseman claimed that he was immune from prosecution because he had acted in self-defense. The district court agreed and dismissed the charges. The court also concluded that even if Wiseman was not immune, the state could only charge him with second-degree murder because it had failed to present sufficient evidence of premeditation to support a first-degree-murder charge. The state appeals, arguing that Wiseman was not immune from prosecution and that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation.
No. 113,292: State of Kansas v. Junior Sanchez, appeal from Seward County
A jury convicted Junior Sanchez on one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery after he reportedly called friends over to his house to attack two people. The court imposed a 41-month sentence. On appeal, he raises five challenges. He contends that the district court erred by dismissing a potential juror for cause and that the court failed to follow proper procedures to make sure that the prosecutor wasn't using peremptory challenges (which allow jurors to be excluded without a specific reason) to eliminate the potential jurors who were Hispanic. He also argues that there was insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, prosecutorial misconduct occurred when the state misrepresented significant facts during closing argument, and the district court violated his constitutional rights by giving him a sentence greater than the minimum guidelines without presenting aggravating facts to the jury for a finding.
1:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 19, 2016
No. 113,563: Douglas R. Peters v. Deseret Cattle Feeders, LLC, appeal from Haskell County
Douglas Peters worked for Hitch Feeders, a cattle feeding operation. In 2010, Deseret Cattle Feeders, LLC, purchased Hitch Feeders. Peters claims that in meetings leading up to the closing of the sale, Deseret represented to Hitch Feeders' employees that if they would stay on and work at the feed yard, their employment would be secure. Also, according to Peters, Deseret indicated there would be no layoffs and that the employees would continue to be employed by Deseret as long as they continued to perform their jobs. Peters said that Hitch Feeders offered a severance package if the employees chose not to work for Deseret. Peters took the job offer from Deseret and did not take advantage of the severance package. In June 2011, Peters was terminated by Deseret due to a reduction in workforce. Peters sued Deseret for breach of an employment contract and under a legal theory called promissory estoppel (under which a promise may be enforced, even without a contract, where a party has been harmed by reasonably relying on that promise). The district court granted summary judgment to Deseret. On appeal, Peters claims (1) that the district court erred in finding that no employment contract was formed and that he was an "at-will" employee and (2) that the district court erred in ruling against him on the promissory estoppel claim because he relied on representations by Deseret of secure employment when he rejected Hitch Feeder's severance offer.
No. 114,745: Dahir Dirshe v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. and Chartis Casualty Company, Appeal from Workers Compensation Appeals Board
Dahir Dirshe was injured on the job working for Cargill Meat Solutions and applied for workers' compensation. Dirshe argued that, as a result of his injury, he had experienced total wage loss and total task loss—making him eligible to receive work-disability benefits in the amount of $130,000. But the Workers Compensation Appeals Board found that Dirshe was fired for cause, so his wage loss was not attributable to his injury and he was therefore not eligible to receive work disability. Second, the board determined that Dirshe's functional impairment rating was 18 percent. The 18 percent was an average of two independent physicians' opinions of 17 percent and 19 percent. Based on this rating, the board awarded Dirshe $24,906.47. Dirshe appeals, arguing that the board's findings that he was fired for cause and that his functional impairment rating was only 18 percent (rather than 19 percent) were not supported by substantial evidence.
9 a.m. Wednesday, July 20, 2016
No. 115,028: St. Catherine Hospital v. Ovidio Alvarez and Bianca Alvarez, appeal from Finney County
St. Catherine Hospital in Garden City sued Bianca Alvarez for medical costs incurred for the treatment of her ex-husband, Ovidio Alvarez. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of St. Catherine. On appeal, Bianca argues she is not liable for the debt because the couple was separated, though not divorced, at the time of Ovidio's treatment. Based on an 1873 Kansas Supreme Court case, she argues that the doctrine of necessities (which generally requires that a person pay for necessary care provided to his or her spouse) does not apply when a couple is separated and one of the partners has left the marital home for an unjustifiable reason. St. Catherine Hospital argues that because the couple was still legally married at the time of the treatment, Bianca is still liable and that the exception set out in the 1873 court decision is no longer good law.
No. 113,851: Lonnie Cline and Joe Cline v. Gary Peterson, appeal from Ness County
In 1996, Jim Cline sold 600 acres of farmland to Gary Peterson, but Jim retained the right to live on the property until his death. In 2006, Gary wrote Jim a letter describing the terms of an agreement that they had reached over the phone: (1) they would split 50-50 any proceeds from the mineral rights in the 600 acres; (2) Jim "may" leave his half of the mineral rights to his children; and (3) the homestead and the 250 acres surrounding it still belonged to Jim. Jim died in 2010. In 2012, Gary first obtained some oil and gas leases on the 600 acres. Jim's children now seek to enforce the 2006 letter against Gary, claiming Gary owes them 50 percent of the proceeds of the oil and gas leases and must give them the homestead and the 250 acres surrounding it. A Ness County jury found in favor of Jim's children, and Gary appealed. Gary argues primarily that the 2006 letter isn't an enforceable contract and that even if it is, Jim's children can't enforce it because they weren't parties to the alleged contract and weren't intended beneficiaries of it. Gary also argues that the judgment against him violates due process because it only vaguely describes the land that he has to give to Jim's children as "the 250 acres, more or less, surrounding the homestead," without any further legal description.