Appellate Decisions

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 93 No. 4 Pg. 68
• Pages: 68

Appellate Decisions93 J. Kan. Bar Assn 4, 68 (2024)Kansas Bar JournalAugust 2024

July 2024

Kansas Supreme Court

All opinion digests are available on the KBA website at www.ksbar.org/digests. If you do not have access to the KBA members-only site, or if your email address or other contact information has changed, please contact member and communication services at info@ksbar.org or at 785-234-5696. For the full text of opinions, access the courts' website at www.kscourts.org.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

ORDER OF SUSPENSION IN RE KEVIN T. CURE NO. 126,270 — MAY 3, 2024

FACTS: After a disciplinary hearing, the hearing panel concluded Kevin T. Cure violated KRPC 1.2(a) (scope), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.16(a) (declining or terminating representation), and 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Cure did not file exceptions to the hearing panel's final report.

HELD: The Court accepted the panel's factual findings and conclusions of law based on respondent's admission. Based on the evidence presented, recommendations, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the appropriate discipline is respondent's indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

CIVIL

CIVIL PROCEDURE; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; DUE PROCESS

JENNINGS V. SCHAUCK

WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT — REVERSED AND

REMANDED

COURT OF APPEALS — AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART

NO. 123,495 — MAY 3, 2024

FACTS: Dave Jennings and Emily McLeod filed a quiet title action against Elizabeth "Betsy" Shauck regarding the ownership of Oscar, an award-winning show dog. Betsy counterclaimed, also seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Dave and Emily from harboring Oscar and restrain them from neutering him. The district court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction, at which the parties presented testimony and submitted exhibits by stipulation. Following the hearing, the district court entered a memorandum decision ruling on the preliminary injunction but also making factual findings and legal conclusions on the merits of the underlying petition. A Court of Appeals panel found the district court violated the Dave and Emily's due process rights but that the parties co-owned Oscar. The Kansas Supreme Court then granted Betsy's petition for review.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the district court erred in expanding the scope of the hearing; (2) Whether the Court of Appeals panel erred in addressing the merits of the underlying claims

HELD: (1) The panel correctly concluded that the district court improperly expanded the scope of the hearing beyond Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction without giving the parties the proper notice. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-215(b) does not permit a district court to unilaterally accelerate the procedural phase of a case from a preliminary hearing to a final trial on the merits. Further, there is nothing in the record to show the parties agreed to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a final trial on the merits. (2) However, the panel erred by attempting to resolve the case's merits on purely legal grounds. The appropriate remedy was remanding the matter for further proceedings.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 60-905; K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-215(b)(2); K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-207(a), -215, -215(b)

STANDING; VOTING RIGHTS

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KANSAS V.

SCHWAB

SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT — AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART

COURT OF APPEALS — AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART

NO. 124,378 — MAY 31, 2024

FACTS: The League of Women Voters of Kansas, Loud Light, Kansas Appleseed, and the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center (collectively "League") challenged three new provisions of Kansas election statutes that prohibited: (1) any person from knowingly misrepresenting oneself as an election official; (2) election officials from counting unsigned or improperly signed advance ballots; and (3) any person from collecting and returning more than 10 advance ballots for other voters. The district court declined to grant a temporary injunction against enforcement of the false representation provision and granted the State's motion to dismiss the claims for the other provisions, which resulted in multiple appeals that were later consolidated by the Kansas Supreme Court. In one appeal, a Court of Appeals panel determined the League lacked standing to challenge the false representation provision and dismissed the appeal. In another appeal, a Court of Appeals panel determined the League had stated a valid claim for relief that the signature verification and ballot collection provisions violated several rights under the Kansas Constitution. The League and the State both petitioned for review.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the League demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that the false representation statute violated their free speech rights under the Kansas...