Appellate Decisions
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Pages | 51 |
Supreme Court
Attorney Discipline
ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION IN RE UCHECHI OKECHUKWU NWAKANMA
NO. 116,773 — JANUARY 27, 2017
FACTS: Nwakanma is currently subject to pending disciplinary complaints. The complaints, which have not yet been fully adjudicated, include allegations that Nwakanma was taking fees without performing work and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Texas. For that reason, the hearing panel asked the disciplinary administrator to seek the temporary suspension of Nwakanma's law license while the disciplinary case was pending. The disciplinary administrator filed the motion seeking temporary suspension in order to protect the public.
COURT PROCEEDINGS: The Kansas Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why Nwakanma's license should not be temporarily suspended. A hearing was set for January 24, 2017. After business hours on the day before the hearing, Nwakanma alerted the court that he would not appear at the hearing. The disciplinary administrator did appear and argued for the suspension.
HELD: Rule 203(b) allows for a temporary suspension pending final disposition in order to protect clients from injury and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Based on the hearing panel's findings and the disciplinary administrator's presentation, plus Nwakanma's failure to appear, the court ordered the temporary suspension of Nwakanma's license.
Civil
ESTOPPEL—PLEADINGS—STANDING STECKLINE COMMUNICATIONS V JOURNAL BROADCAST GROUP OF KANSAS
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, CASE IS REMANDED
NO. 111,651—JANUARY 27, 2017
FACTS: Steckline is the founder of the Mid America Ag Network, a group dedicated to producing market reports and other radio broadcasts for those involved in the agriculture business. In 2003, Journal Broadcasting entered a settlement agreement with MAAN, establishing the parties' business relationship for the next 15 years. In 2005, Steckline purchased assets from MAAN, including its tradenames and business contracts. Despite a contractual provision, Journal Broadcasting was not asked for and did not provide consent to assign the 2003 contract. Tensions arose between the parties, and in 2012 Journal Broadcasting stopped broadcasting MAAN content. Steckline sued Journal Broadcasting for breaching the 2003 contract. Journal Broadcasting countered that it had no business relationship with Steckline and did not know that Steck-line acquired assets from MAAN. After discovery was complete, Journal Broadcasting filed a K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) motion to dismiss on grounds that Steckline lacked standing to sue for breach of the agreement. Steckline countered that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Journal Broadcasting waived notice requirements in the assignment clause of the 2003 contract. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding a lack of standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that MAAN never obtained Journal Broadcasting's consent to assign the contract. The Supreme Court granted Steckline's petition for review.
ISSUE: Did Steckline allege sufficient facts to establish standing?
HELD: Standing is a component of jurisdiction. Because Steck-line was not a party to the 2003 contract, to have standing it would generally be required to show that MAAN assigned its interests to Steckline. A review of the record on appeal shows that Steckline asserted well-pled facts that Journal Broadcasting, by its silence at the time of assignment, induced Steckline into believing that Journal Broadcasting consented to the assignment of rights from MAAN to Steckline. This means that Steckline pled standing via equitable estoppel.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-212(b)(6)
EMINENT DOMAIN—EVIDENCE—REAL PROPERTY GARBER CONSTRUCTION V KING DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 113,732—JANUARY27, 2017
FACTS: King, the Secretary of Transportation, initiated eminent domain proceedings against Garber Construction in order to facilitate construction of a portion of the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT). The court-awarded appraiser valued Garber Construction's land at $105,000. Garber Construction appealed that valuation to the district court, arguing that the compensation was inadequate. Before trial, Secretary King sought a motion in limine excluding testimony from Garber Construction's proposed expert as well as from its president. The expert's testimony was excluded because the district court believed it violated the Project Influence Rule, because it was impossible to separate Garber property's new, enhanced location from the SLT project itself. The president of Garber Construction's testimony was excluded because the property sales she put forth as comparable were not in Kansas, leaving no logical connection between the project and her testimony. The case went to trial without the excluded evidence, and a jury valued the property at $112,000. Garber Construction appealed, claiming the district court wrongly excluded the challenged evidence.
ISSUE: Did the district court err by granting the motions in limine?
HELD: In an eminent domain proceeding, a district court has broad discretion to admit or reject evidence. The Project Influence
Rule excludes certain factors from the fair market value calculation in an eminent domain proceeding. Specifically, the court does not consider the enhancement of value due to anticipated improvements because the eminent domain statutes require that fair market value be calculated at the time of the taking. That rule justified the district court's exclusion of the expert testimony. The president of Garber Construction was allowed to testify about fair market value where that testimony was based on familiarity with property and values in the neighborhood. While testimony regarding comparable properties is allowed, the president's testimony was flawed because it did not evaluate comparable property. Further, projected profits from business conducted on certain property are not compensable under eminent domain proceedings. The district court did not err by excluding the testimony.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 26-513, -513(b), -513(e)
Criminal
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—APPEAL AND ERROR—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—DEATH PENALTY—JURY INSTRUCTIONS
STATE V GLEASON
BARTON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 97,296—FEBRUARY 3, 2017
FACTS: Gleason was convicted of capital murder for killings of Wornkey...
To continue reading
Request your trial