WELCOME TO THE TBA 

The key resource for attorneys practicing in Topeka and Shawnee County. 

JOIN 

Upcoming events

  • 27 Jul 2020 9:56 AM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Supreme Court Nominating Commission is accepting nominees for a vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court created by Justice Carol Beier's September 18 retirement.

    Beier's retirement triggers a merit-based nomination process that Kansans voted to add to the Kansas Constitution in 1958. The process involves the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which reviews nominees, and the governor, who makes the appointments.  

    Application process

    Applications must be received by the clerk of the appellate courts' office by noon, September 2, and be on the application form from the judicial branch website or from the clerk of the appellate courts office in the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka.

    Douglas T. Shima
    Clerk of the Appellate Courts
    Kansas Judicial Center
    301 SW 10th Ave., Room 107
    Topeka KS 66612-1507

    Merit-based selection process

    When there is a vacancy on the court, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications and conducts public interviews of nominees. The commission narrows the nominee pool to three names that it sends to the governor. The governor chooses one nominee to appoint.

    The nominating commission will announce when it will convene to interview applicants. Interviews are open to the public.

    Nominating commission

    The Supreme Court Nominating Commission has nine members. There is one lawyer and one nonlawyer from each of the state’s four congressional districts, plus one lawyer who serves as chairperson.

    Nonlawyers are appointed by the governor. Lawyers are elected by other lawyers within their congressional districts. The chairperson is elected by lawyers statewide.

    The commission has two new members. Lawyers in the 3rd Congressional District elected Katie McClaflin of Overland Park, and Governor Laura Kelly appointed Carol Marinovich of Kansas City, Kansas.

    Eligibility requirements

    A nominee for justice must be:

    • at least 30 years old; and

    • a lawyer admitted to practice in Kansas and engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years, whether as a lawyer, judge, or full-time teacher at an accredited law school.

    Selection criteria

    When the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews nominees for justice, they look at the person’s:

    • legal and judicial experience;
    • educational background;
    • character and ethics;
    • temperament;
    • service to the community;
    • impartiality; and
    • respect of colleagues.

    Judicial conduct

    Justices must follow the law and not be influenced by politics, special interest groups, public opinion, or their own personal beliefs.

    Justices demonstrate their accountability by following a Code of Judicial Conduct that establishes standards of ethical behavior. They also take an oath of office that includes swearing to support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and Kansas Constitution.

    Retention elections

    After a new justice serves one year on the court, he or she must stand for a retention vote in the next general election to remain in the position. If retained, the justice serves a six-year term.


  • 17 Jul 2020 1:57 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)


    The Kansas Supreme Court issued the following published decisions July 17, 2020

    Appeal No. 119,359: State of Kansas vs. Billy J. Hill 

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    Hill is serving a hard-25 life sentence after pleading no contest to murder and other charges in 2000 in Osage County District Court. The Supreme Court held he failed to establish excusable neglect required by law in order to withdraw his plea outside the one-year statute of limitations.

    Appeal No. 120,600: State of Kansas vs. Jerome Edwards 

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed a Shawnee County district judge's denial of Edwards' request for a new trial on the basis of post-conviction DNA testing. Edwards was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the 1996 shooting death of Donnie Smart. Seventeen years after Edwards' conviction, his request for post-conviction DNA testing of evidence was granted. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation and a private laboratory both tested the evidence. No DNA conclusively put Edwards at the scene, but some samples were not of sufficient quality to identify the individual who left the sample. Edwards unsuccessfully requested a new trial on the basis of the DNA results. The Supreme Court held the district judge did not abuse her discretion by denying his request. Because of the strong non-DNA evidence against Edwards, the district judge reasonably concluded there was no reasonable probability the DNA evidence would have changed the original trial's outcome.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today


  • 17 Jul 2020 1:44 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court issued the following published decisions July 17, 2020

    Appeal No. 116,515: State of Kansas v. Christopher M. Harris

    Archived oral argument 

    Harris was convicted in Sedgwick County District Court of criminal possession of a weapon for carrying a pocketknife. Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304, it is a crime for a convicted felon to possess a knife. The statute defines knife as "a dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto, straight-edged razor or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character." In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Supreme Court held the residual clause "or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character" in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide an explicit and objective standard of enforcement. This lack of an explicit and objective standard of enforcement impermissibly delegated legislative power to the executive and judicial branches. Thus, the court reversed Harris' conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the charge of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Justices Dan Biles and Eric Rosen and Court of Appeals Judge Henry Green Jr. dissented, concluding that K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to Harris and would remand to the district court for a new trial so Harris could pursue his mistake-of-law defense.

    Appeal No. 116,670: State of Kansas vs. John Christopher Harrison

    Archived oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed Harrison's convictions of various crimes resulting from a traffic stop and physical encounter with police. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Dan Biles, the Supreme Court rejected Harrison's claim that Johnson County District Court erred when it responded to a jury question by having court staff deliver a written note to the jury room rather than convening in open court and answering the question in Harrison's presence. The Supreme Court reasoned Kansas statute expressly authorizes this delivery, and the federal constitution does not prohibit it.

    Appeal No. 116,810: State of Kansas v. Amber E. Burden

    Archived oral argument 

    Burden represented herself at trial and was convicted by a jury. On appeal she argued Sumner County District Court should not have allowed her to proceed pro se. The Supreme Court held the district court was not required to appoint counsel for a defendant who wished to exercise her constitutional right to self-representation when there was no evidence of severe mental illness.


  • 10 Jul 2020 2:23 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    Judicial branch awarded $1.6 million grant to help ensure Kansans' access to justice

     

    The Kansas judicial branch was awarded $1.6 million from the state's Federal Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding Program to help pay for technology improvements that will provide broader digital access to justice and allow courts to conduct more operations remotely.

    The grant will help pay for:

    • remote technology equipment and software, including mobile hot spots, cell phones and service plans, laptop and tablet computers, computer accessories, webcams, printers, and software;

    • videoconferencing and virtual private network licenses;

    • a new web portal to allow people to seek protection orders without visiting a courthouse;

    • public access computer terminals to allow self-represented litigants access to virtual court proceedings; and

    • a centralized email system to allow the secure transmission of court-related documents, data, and messages.

    "The grant comes at a critical time, and it will help us accelerate modernizing Kansas courts," said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. "We’ve been working to digitize and centralize case processing the last several years, often with limited resources. Despite our progress, the COVID-19 pandemic quickly showed us how much more needs to be done."

    The judicial branch mandates electronic filing for attorneys and is implementing a statewide centralized case management system that will be used by all state courts. But until recently nearly all court proceedings and services still required in-person meetings.

    The pandemic forced courts to respond quickly. The immediate challenge was shifting to virtual court proceedings and equipping court staff to work remotely. Lack of technology was one challenge. Judges and court staff also had to develop new remote processes that met statutory and constitutional requirements and then help attorneys, parties, and the public adapt to them.

    Court resources vary widely among the state's 105 counties. The state pays for judicial branch salaries, but operating costs of district courts fall to individual counties. Some county governments robustly support court technology infrastructure, but others do not have the resources to do so. In addition, more than half of the state's courts serve rural areas, where reliable internet service is sometimes unavailable.

    Some courts were able to adapt to the new challenges more quickly because they had the resources. Others need additional support, which the grant funding provides in part.

    Remote technology equipment and software

    District courts require technology and software to process cases remotely and for most or all district court staff to telework. The grant will help courts pay for computers, cell phones, mobile hot spots, and other technology and software needs.

    Branch-wide Zoom license and VPN access

    The Office of Judicial Administration negotiated a statewide enterprise license option with Zoom for court videoconferencing. It will provide a Zoom account for every judge and each courthouse. It also covers virtual private network (VPN) licenses that allow teleworking personnel to access the judicial network.

    Web portal to file for protective orders

    The pandemic emphasized the judicial branch's dependence on paper-based, in-person processes for some court users and some case types, such as requests for orders of protection from abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or human trafficking.

    The grant will help pay to create a scalable, accessible, and mobile-friendly web portal where a person seeking a protection order is guided through an online interview and the answers are used to populate forms a judge will review before granting an order.

    People who need these orders will no longer have to visit the courthouse in person to file the required paperwork, a process that places these vulnerable individuals at risk.

    Courthouse computer terminals for self-represented litigants

    Grant money will allow courts to place computer terminals in courthouses or other public facilities and dedicate them to self-represented litigants who do not have equipment or internet access to appear for remote proceedings.

    Centralized email service

    A centralized email service for all judicial branch personnel will allow the secure transmission of court-related documents, data, and communications between district courts and centralized judicial staff in the Office of Judicial Administration.

    Other funding resources

    The state grant money will enhance other funding sources the judicial branch is using to modernize court services. The Kansas Supreme Court and the Office of Judicial Administration recently devoted about $750,000 in Court Improvement Program grant funds and fee funds to help district courts upgrade technology. However, that funding is insufficient to meet all district court needs.

    The judicial branch continues to pursue other grant funding opportunities to strengthen digital access to justice and remote operations.


  • 10 Jul 2020 1:57 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court issued the following published decisions June 10, 2020:

    Appeal No. 116,649: State of Kansas v. Anthony Michael Brazzle

    Archived oral argument 

    The Supreme Court affirmed Brazzle's drug-related convictions, including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of oxycodone. The Supreme Court held Riley County District Court did not err by allowing the State to present evidence Brazzle sold methamphetamine to undercover detectives about a week before the car stop leading to the convictions at issue. The evidence was material to the disputed question of whether Brazzle intended to personally use or distribute the drugs found in the car. And the risk of undue prejudice to Brazzle did not substantially outweigh the evidence's probative value. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals' holding that because Brazzle advocated for the version of the possession of oxycodone jury instruction the district court provided to the jury, he could not claim error on appeal. And finally, the Supreme Court held sufficient evidence supported Brazzle's possession of oxycodone conviction. 

    Appeal No. 119,228: In the Matter of the Equalization Appeals of Target Corporation et al.

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court revived Johnson County's appeal from a Kansas Board of Tax Appeals proceeding adjusting taxpayers' property values. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal at the taxpayers' request. The taxpayers argued there was no jurisdiction to review the proceedings, since the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals had not issued a final decision—generally a requirement for taxing authorities to obtain judicial review of board actions. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Dan Biles, the Supreme Court concluded there was jurisdiction to consider the county's argument the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals wrongly refused to issue a final decision. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.

    Appeal No. 119,315: State of Kansas v. Brent J. Carter

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    A Sedgwick County jury convicted Carter of two counts of first-degree felony murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, one count of aggravated battery, and one count of criminal threat. The battery and threat charges arose from an incident in which Carter hit and threatened to kill Tatyana Crowe. The murder and firearm charges arose from a later shooting at a house in Wichita, resulting in the deaths of Betty Ann Holloman and Brenton Oliver. In an opinion written by Justice Eric Rosen, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court held any error in the district court's refusal to instruct the jury that presence alone does not make the defendant an aider or abettor was harmless because there was ample evidence of Carter's direct involvement in the crimes. The Supreme Court also held the district court made no error when it found the battery precipitated the shooting and then consolidated the charges into one case.

    Appeal No. 121,051: In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Girl G

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    This is an appeal from a termination of paternal rights pursuant to an adoption proceeding under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 59-2136(h). Sedgwick County District Court granted the proposed adoptive parents' petitions seeking termination of the biological father's rights, finding the father failed to provide the mother with adequate support during her pregnancy. On the father's appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order but remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the attorney fees award. The Supreme Court granted the father's petition for review of that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion relating to the termination order. The father sought review of the factual findings made by the district court. In addition, for the first time in the litigation of the case, the father raised arguments asserting the Kansas termination statute is unconstitutional because it denies biological fathers equal protection of the law and infringes on constitutionally protected liberty and due process interests. Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Eric Rosen issued an opinion holding the father failed to preserve the constitutional arguments and the arguments did not fall within recognized exceptions to the preservation requirement. The Supreme Court therefore declined to address the constitutional issues on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals holding on the inadequacy of the father's support. The case was remanded to the district court to carry out the judgment of the Court of Appeals relating to attorney fees. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Caleb Stegall argued the constitutional issue fell within the exceptions to the preservation requirement and the court should have ruled on the merits of the father's various arguments. He contended the evolving direction of constitutional law tends to support broader inherent rights of biological fathers than courts and legislatures have traditionally recognized.


  • 06 Jul 2020 12:56 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    Appeal No. 118,091: State of Kansas v. Grady Allen Kornelson

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed Kornelson's Reno County convictions for driving under the influence and illegal transportation of liquor. Kornelson's first trial on the charges ended when the trial court determined the jury was unable to reach a verdict. A second jury convicted him. Kornelson argued the second trial violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Dan Biles, the Supreme Court concluded the second trial was permitted because there was a manifest necessity to end the first trial based on the jury's inability to agree.

    Appeal No. 118,698: Jeffrey Alan Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to Cloud County District Court with directions, finding summary judgment was not warranted. The dispute in this personal injury case arises from a fight between Hammond and a patron of the VFW bar. The VFW argued it owed Hammond no duty at the time he sustained his injuries, as the physical harm took place outside the VFW. The Supreme Court held that under these circumstances, the VFW may be liable if the duty arose and the breach occurred on VFW property, even if the actual resulting physical harm took place entirely outside.

    Appeal No. 119,993: State of Kansas v. Andrew Lynn Gibson

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed Gibson's convictions of child abuse and felony murder with the underlying felony of child abuse. His crimes involved the asphyxiation of a baby girl in 2016. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Dan Biles, the Supreme Court rejected Gibson's claims Riley County District Court erred when it found he waived a privileged communication with a defense-hired psychologist, there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions, and the jury instruction on the State's burden of proof improperly discouraged the jury from exercising its nullification power. But the Supreme Court vacated a lifetime postrelease supervision requirement imposed by the trial court, since that could not be imposed in conjunction with Gibson's life prison sentence.

    Appeal No. 120,683: State of Kansas v. Virgil S. Bradford

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    The Supreme Court affirmed Dickinson County District Court's denial of Bradford's motion to correct an illegal sentence. In 1999, a Dickinson County jury convicted Bradford of capital murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and two counts of felony theft. Many years after his sentences for these crimes became final, Bradford argued his aggravated robbery sentence was illegal. Bradford based his argument on a 2018 change in the law. The Supreme Court rejected Bradford's argument. The court held if a criminal defendant moves to correct an illegal sentence, courts judge the sentence's legality as of the time the sentencing judge pronounced the sentence. Later changes in the law do not render a legal sentence illegal. The court also held Bradford could not raise constitutional challenges to his sentence through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today


  • 06 Jul 2020 12:42 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court reappointed four attorneys to four-year terms on the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys.

    Their terms began July 1 and end June 30, 2024.

    Reappointed were:

    • John Gatz, Colby;

    • Stacy Ortega, Wichita;

    • James Rankin, Topeka; and

    • Lee Smithyman, Overland Park.

    The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator works under the direction of the Supreme Court. The disciplinary administrator reviews and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys, presents cases to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, recommends discipline to the Supreme Court in serious matters, and provides education and resources for Kansas attorneys to prevent the occurrence of misconduct.

    Gatz chairs the board, and Derrick Roberson, Manhattan, is vice chair. They serve on the review committee, along with at-large member Leslie Miller, Lawrence. They review all cases docketed for investigation and issue a report on the disposition of the case, which may be dismissal (with or without a letter of caution), diversion, informal admonition, or institution of formal charges. 

    Members of the board—made up of attorneys from across the state—meet in three-person panels, which include two board members and one at-large attorney, to conduct hearings in cases where the review committee has found probable cause that an attorney has violated the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and that published discipline is warranted. Other members of the board are:

    • Gregory Bauer, Great Bend;

    • Stephen Cavanaugh, Topeka;

    • Jeffrey Chubb, Independence;

    • Lucky DeFries, Topeka;

    • Shaye Downing, Lawrence;

    • John Duma, Olathe;

    • Glenn Kerbs, Dodge City;

    • John Larson, Shawnee;

    • Terry Mann, Wichita;

    • Kathryn Marsh, Leawood;

    • Mira Mdivani, Overland Park;

    • Kala Spigarelli, Pittsburg;

    • Gaye Tibbets, Wichita; and

    • Darcy Williamson, Topeka.


  • 06 Jul 2020 12:41 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court today issued an administrative order requiring district and appellate courts to comply with the governor's order requiring people to wear face coverings in public areas to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

    Administrative Order 2020-PR-090, effective July 3, requires district and appellate courts to comply with Gov. Laura Kelly's Executive Order No. 20-52 requiring the use of face coverings in public, even though the governor's order exempts court proceedings.

    The Supreme Court order requires all court employees, judicial officers, and members of the public to wear a face covering in any courtroom, court office, or other facility used for a court proceeding. Face coverings must also be worn in any nonpublic court office unless physical shields are in place.

    Courts are required to comply even if local county commissions opt out of the governor's executive order.

    "We must protect the health and safety of court users, staff, and judicial officers during this pandemic," Chief Justice Marla Luckert said. "The use of face coverings, hygiene practices, protective shielding, and social distancing will allow us to do that as we conduct court proceedings across the state."

    The Supreme Court order allows a judge to waive the face covering requirement under certain circumstances set out in the order.


  • 29 Jun 2020 10:50 AM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    Appeal No. 117,973: Brian Russell and Brent Flanders, trustee of the Brent Eugene Flanders and Lisa Ann Flanders Revocable Family Trust v. Treanor Investments LLC and 8th & New Hampshire LLC

    Archived oral argument video

    The Supreme Court today affirmed the Douglas County District Court's decision in favor of two developers in a dispute with condominium owners who objected to the developers' planned grocery store in downtown Lawrence. The grocery store would occupy the same development as the condominiums. All parties agreed the project would require a change to land use restrictions imposed on the development in the late 1990s. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that under the terms of the restrictions, the developers were free to change them without the condominium owners' consent.

    Appeal No. 118,790: In the Matter of J.P.

    Archived oral argument video

    When John P. was a juvenile, he committed offenses and received both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence in what is called an extended-jurisdiction juvenile proceeding. After Wyandotte County District Court found John violated conditions of his juvenile sentence, the court imposed his 237-month adult sentence. John appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion written by Judge Steve Leben, sitting with the court by designation, the Supreme Court held appellate courts have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-2347(e)(4), giving juveniles like John who are subject to extended-jurisdiction proceedings all the rights of a defendant under the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure. Because that code would provide an adult defendant the right to appeal a final judgment imposing a prison sentence, John had the right to appeal the order imposing his adult sentence.

    Appeal No. 120,190: State of Kansas v. Michael Eugene George Jr.

    Summary calendar; no oral argument

    On a direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed George's five criminal convictions. In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Supreme Court held George's convictions for attempted distribution or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, attempted aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault are not multiplicitous with one another. Further, the Supreme Court held George failed to properly preserve an evidentiary claim on appeal and could not reframe the issue as one of prosecutorial error. Additionally, the Supreme Court held even if the district court erred when it excluded a witness's testimony, his account was presented in its entirety through other testimony and therefore was harmless. Finding a single harmless error, the Supreme Court found George's claim of cumulative error meritless.


    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today

  • 29 Jun 2020 10:48 AM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court issued the following published decisions June 26, 2020

    Appeal No. 116,151: State of Kansas v. Charles D. Satchell

    Archived oral argument video

    Satchell appealed his convictions for several sex offenses involving two children. He argued Sedgwick County District Court should not have admitted evidence at trial that he had sexually abused three other children under similar circumstances. In an opinion written by Judge Steve Leben, sitting with the court by designation, the Supreme Court held the district court properly admitted the evidence under K.S.A. 60-455(d), which allows the State to present evidence of similar prior sexual offenses to show a person's propensity to engage in that conduct. Although such evidence may be excluded if the potential for undue prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, that was not the case here. Because the district court did not err in admitting the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed Satchell's convictions. The district court did err, however, in imposing two different forms of supervision once Satchell finishes serving his consecutive prison sentences. The Supreme Court vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Satchell's sentence but otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentences.

    Appeal No. 117,518: Shelby Montgomery and Scott E. Bennett v. Patrick R. Saleh and State of Kansas

    Archived oral argument video

    Montgomery and Bennett were injured when a car driven by Robert Horton ran a red light and collided with Bennett's truck. Horton was being pursued by Saleh, a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper. Montgomery and Bennett sued Saleh, claiming he was negligent for failing to end his pursuit of Horton earlier than he did. They also sued the State of Kansas under a theory of vicarious liability. The district court granted summary judgment for Saleh and the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for trial, holding the plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed with their negligence action against Saleh. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for review. In a per curiam decision, a majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed the district court, allowing the case to proceed to trial against Saleh. The majority held Saleh owed Montgomery and Bennett a statutory duty to drive with due regard to their safety. The majority of the Supreme Court next held the plaintiffs presented enough evidence that Saleh breached his duty of care that a jury could reasonably find in their favor. The question of breach of duty therefore became a fact question to be decided by a jury. The majority of the Supreme Court then considered whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for proximate cause—both causation in fact and causation in law. The majority concluded the evidence the plaintiffs proferred was sufficient to have that question decided by a jury. Finally, the majority of the Supreme Court held Saleh was not protected by statutory immunity provisions. The plaintiffs did not seek review of the portion of the Court of Appeals decision in favor of the State of Kansas, and that ruling was accordingly affirmed.

    Justice Eric Rosen wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justice Caleb Stegall and by Judge Henry Green, who was sitting in place of retired Justice Lee Johnson. The dissent argued the facts as proferred by the plaintiffs failed to show Saleh's conduct breached a duty of care and no evidence showed Saleh demonstrated a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of the danger presented by the situation. The dissent also contended the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Saleh's conduct was the cause of the accident. The dissent maintained the evidence was speculative and would require a jury to make ungrounded assumptions about Horton's behavior as he fled Saleh's pursuit.



Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software