Chief Judge Dickinson of 9th judicial district to sit with Kansas Supreme Court May 3

TOPEKA — Chief Judge Joe Dickinson of the 9th 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, May 3.     

After hearing oral arguments, Dickinson will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.     

“I am pleased that Chief Judge Dickinson is taking time from his duties in the 9th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court,” said Chief Justice Lawton Nuss. “It's a great help to our court, and we look forward to his contributions deliberating this case.”     

Dickinson was appointed district court judge in 2002, after 20 years in private law practice in Newton. He is a lifelong Kansan and graduated from Washburn University and Washburn University School of Law.     

"It is a great honor to be able to serve with the Supreme Court," Dickinson said. "I have the utmost respect for the work our appellate judges do on the many difficult cases that they routinely confront. Kansans have every right to be proud of our system of justice."     

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 Dickinson will hear is the third one scheduled on the Supreme Court's 9 a.m. docket Wednesday, May 3:     

Appeal No. 113,288: In re Estate of Earlene F. Brenner 

Sherman County: (Petition for Review) Beverly Goodman petitioned for administration of her mother's estate. Beverly's brother, Danny Brenner, objected to the petition claiming there were no assets in the estate and that Beverly's petition was really a claim against the estate barred by the six-month nonclaims statute. The district court granted Danny's motion to dismiss, finding there were no substantial assets subject to administration. A majority of a Court of Appeals panel treated Danny's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and found there were material facts at issue and reversed the district court's decision. The dissent would affirm the district court. Issue on review is whether Goodman's petition for administration should be considered a claim against the estate and barred by the six-month nonclaims statute.