9 a.m. • Monday, September 14
Appeal No. 120,824: State of Kansas v. Gianni Massimo Daino
Johnson County: (Petition for Review) The district court suppressed evidence taken from Daino's apartment. It found Daino's actions, in response to the officer's request to enter his apartment, would be found by a reasonable person to indicate his consent. However, the district court felt compelled by Kansas law to hold Daino's acts were implied consent, which is not valid. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and found Daino's acts, whether labeled as express consent or implied consent, gave valid consent for officers to enter his apartment. Issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Daino unequivocally, specifically, freely, and intelligently consented to officers entering his residence to investigate the smell of marijuana.
11 a.m. • Monday, September 14
Case No. 122,638: In the Matter of James W. Fuller, Respondent
Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline: (Indefinite suspension) The Supreme Court admitted Fuller to the practice of law in Kansas in April 2017. Fuller began taking Adderall while in law school, using the university's health services, but began illegally purchasing Adderall after he graduated. His ethical issues arose when he represented the person who was selling him Adderall and also started missing court dates and obligations. Fuller also began using methamphetamine and marijuana. Fuller began trading legal services for drugs. He eventually reported his actions, and his law firm also filed a complaint. In October 2019, the Supreme Court suspended Fuller's license for failure to comply with the annual attorney registration requirements. Fuller engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after his suspension. The hearing panel unanimously recommends indefinite suspension of Fuller's license to practice law. The disciplinary administrator recommends indefinite suspension. Fuller seeks a six-month suspension.
1:30 p.m. • Monday, September 14
Appeal No. 118,035: Jayhawk Racing Properties LLC and Heartland Park Raceway LLC v. City of Topeka
Shawnee County: (Petition for Review) Jayhawk Racing sued the City for breach of contract when the City failed to pay the company, as promised in a contract, almost $2.4 million for its reversionary interest in the land where Heartland Park Raceway is located. When the City refused to issue bonds to pay for the sale, Jayhawk Racing sued, and the City moved to dismiss the action. With the agreement of the parties, the district court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted the motion, dismissing Jayhawk Racing's lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the court's dismissal, finding the court in granting summary judgment ignored the fundamental purpose of the contract: to purchase an interest in real estate. The Court found this is a proprietary contract where the City was buying all interests in a racetrack. The Court indicated the district court improperly limited its view of the contract to a contingency promise made by the City to issue Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) Bonds, and the City's financing method was an illegal attempt by one council to bind future city councils, thus making the entire contract unenforceable. The Court of Appeals held the City was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding the City's issuance of STAR bonds is the exercise of a proprietary rather than a governmental function; 2) under Kansas law, the City can be held to a contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing to exercise the governmental function of issuing STAR bonds; and 3) the Court of Appeals misapplied the Kansas cash-basis and budget laws.