TOPEKA—Kansas Court of Appeals judges will hear appeals by videoconference Monday, July 13. The oral arguments will be livestreamed on YouTube.
Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger is the presiding judge and is joined by Judges David Bruns and Kim Schroeder for the July 13 docket.
Ordinarily, Court of Appeals panels hear oral arguments in person. Through Administrative Order 2020-PR-076, the Kansas Supreme Court has ordered all hearings be conducted remotely if possible.
9 a.m. • Monday, July 13
Appeal No. 121,879: Ringneck Farms LLC v. Dr. Bradley Steuwe, Fried Enterprises LP, C&W Ranch Ltd., Joel Wimer, and R.J. Fencing LLC
Ottawa County: Ringneck Farms alleged the defendants cut down a hedge row of over 100 trees without permission on Ringneck's property. Ringneck hired expert witnesses who were prepared to testify the replacement cost of the trees was over $1 million. Before the district court, the defendants argued that the only proper measure of damages was the value of the property before the trees were cut down versus after the trees were cut down. The district court agreed and barred Ringneck from presenting its expert witnesses' testimony. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants because Ringneck was unable to prove damages. On appeal, Ringneck argues the district court erred when it barred the expert testimony because tree replacement cost can be a viable measure of damages in certain circumstances.
Appeal No. 121,733: State of Kansas v. Doug Morris
Johnson County: The district court denied Morris' habeas corpus motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 without holding a preliminary or evidentiary hearing because Morris failed to show exceptional circumstances or manifest injustice necessary to sustain his motion. On appeal, Morris claims the change in the law announced in the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 375 P.3d 332 (2016), establishes the manifest injustice and exceptional circumstances for his habeas motion and should be applied retroactively to his case.
1:30 p.m. • Monday, July 13
Appeal No. 119,537: Reiferd Acord v. Scott W. Porter, M.D.; Thomas R. Resch, M.D.; Paul B. Harrison, M.D.; Tyler H. Ternes, M.D.; James B. Winblad, M.D.; Jeffrey S. Kao, M.D.; and Arti Gupta, M.D.
Sedgwick County: Acord filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against various healthcare providers and Wesley Medical Center after he suffered complications from a surgery performed by Porter and Resch, a fifth-year surgical resident. Acord claims negligence for departing from the standard of care, including claims of lack of informed consent and failure to supervise. The district court granted summary judgment to Porter and Resch on Acord's lack of informed consent claim and on his claim that Porter failed to properly supervise Resch during the surgery. The remaining claims were tried before a jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding no fault by any of the defendants. On appeal, Acord argues the district court erred: 1) in granting partial summary judgment to Porter and Resch on claims of lack of informed consent and failure to supervise; 2) in excluding evidence Acord claims was relevant to the surgery in question as well as to the credibility of the defendants; 3) in its jury instructions regarding the standard of care; and (4) in denying Acord's motion to amend to add a complaint for punitive damages based on the alleged fraudulent and deceitful conduct by Porter and Resch.
Appeal No. 121,690: Bucklin National Bank v. Hayse Ranch et al.
Kiowa County: In 2018, Bucklin National Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure action against several defendants, including Helen Hayse, who had died without a will before the foreclosure action. About a month after the case commenced, Celia Pruitt intervened, asserting an ownership interest in the property stemming from her purchase and exercise of Hayse's right of redemption in a previous foreclosure case. The district court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment regarding Pruitt's claim, finding the assignment and exercise of the redemption rights did not transfer ownership of the property to Pruitt because there was no deed of conveyance. Pruitt appeals this ruling, claiming she obtained legal title to the property under K.S.A. 60-2414 because the assignment gave her the exclusive means of regaining ownership over the property and no deed of conveyance was necessary to transfer ownership. Pruitt also argues her due process rights were violated and the court erred in denying her post-trial motions for new trial and relief from the judgment.