TOPEKA — Judge Ben Burgess of the 18th judicial district has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's 9 a.m. docket Wednesday, September 14.
After hearing oral arguments, Burgess will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
"I am pleased that Judge Burgess is taking time from his duties in the 18th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court," said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. "It's a great help to our court and we look forward to his contributions deliberating this case."
Burgess has served as district judge in the 18th judicial district since 2003. Before becoming a judge, he served as assistant Reno County attorney, assistant U.S. attorney, and U.S. Attorney for Kansas. He also had a private law practice for a time, was director of ethics and business conduct for Koch Industries, Inc., and served on the Kansas Parole Board. He is a graduate of Kansas Wesleyan University and Washburn University School of Law.
"I am flattered and truly honored to have this opportunity to sit with our state's highest court and with Chief Justice Nuss, a fellow Salinan," Burgess said. "It promises to be an experience I'll remember for the rest of my life."
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org.
The case Burgess will hear is scheduled on the Supreme Court's 9:00 a.m. docket Wednesday, September 14:
Appeal No. 111,569: Robert K. Miller v. Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County, Kansas
Wabaunsee:(Petition for Review) Miller was terminated by the Board of County Commissioners of Wabaunsee County from his position as county appraiser. Miller filed an administrative appeal with the Property Valuation Division of the Kansas Department of Revenue, which overturned his termination on grounds that the board had breached its written employment agreement with Miller. On review, the district court concluded that the Property Valuation Division lacked authority to consider or decide a breach of contract claim because its sole authority was to review the board's action under K.S.A. 19-431(a). The court vacated the Property Valuation Division's order and remanded the case to the Property Valuation Division. On remand, the Property Valuation Division upheld Miller's termination as proper. The district court and Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Issues on review are whether the district court erred in holding the Property Valuation Division lacked authority to construe and determine a breach of Miller's employment contract and whether Miller should be considered suspended with full benefits until the completion of his term as county appraiser.