DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Administrative Chart

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Administrative Chart If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -- ----------. - ~ ------------------~ ------~-- --- "~" --~---- .-- ~ National Criminal Justice Reference Service I ~n~J~~------------------------------------------i I ['t -, • - '" • I , • I • i·,< " ,::, '. ",\ t 4- . ,. , • I • l I • - • - - • • • This microfiche was produced from documents received for \'", • inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise ~ 1 ~. -... control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, • • - •- \ '.1 '­ • • • - • . the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on 1 ~\-.' • 1I this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. 11 ~ . -- - - , I i - • • . , f • !1 U !1 Ii II : /////2.8 IIIII 2.5 1II ' 1.0 3 2 11111 . 2 Il::i8~ . q 36 I· ~ 1 II I" .:i ~ t,l '"L,a.;:,u,Lo " I~ 11111'·1 1 ! II, I 111111.8 Ii f t ; ! 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 1 I" i 1 ;/ ,\ , MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART it NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A II 11 .'.;c IIi f !! ,., ~77,~~ ~ ... "., ,do'. --­ :$' :,.".-.~ Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. I~I' i J 1.! --F 11 Points of view or opinions stated in this document are i! those of the author(s) and do not represent the official ~~- 11 ~~-;;:-:--.,.......~ position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. '~j --. ! n ~ ..... .,,-._.J II .:.:i::.:~ - .;:-: - -.,~... II ~ National Institute of Justice ~1 - United States Department of Justice ! "........- "';-:-.--~ - Wa.5hington, D. C. 20531 !.{ ...:..:...:.. - 'P '. - J ~I - 6-7-83 - - 11p - rl 1'jr II <. Table of Contents:'~ [j'\1 'c' The Year in Review 3 Managing the Cases 9 ~UJlreme (!Tourt of liauscts Reports from the Districts 19 ~an5a5 alui\idal ClIenier Appendix 31 HOWARD SCHWARTZ 3Ul ~. 1nt1y (913) 296-4873 Graphics Judicial Administrator 'mnpeha, ~an5a5 66612 Supreme Court Administrative Chart __ 2 Pending Civil and Criminal Cases __ l0 January 10, 1983 Age of Pending Criminal Cases 11 Age of Pending Civil Cases 13 Traffic Cases 14 Formal Juvenile Proceedings _____ 15 Domestic Relations 16 Pending Civil Cases 17 To the Honorable Alfred G. Schroeder, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court Dispositions 18 Kansas Judicial Center and the justices of the Supreme Court: Foreword ficing service to the public. Not sur­ standards are working and working prisingly many of the districts re­ well. By the end of the year, only 4.8 This is the second year for the ported the increasing use of percent of the total pending criminal In compliance with the provisions of Rule No. 1.03(c) publication of this executive sum­ computers. Just as the Office of Ju­ cases were one year or older. In the of the Supreme Court, this annual report of the judicial mary of the courts' business in Kan­ dicial Administraton has found civil area, 1,265 cases, or 3.7 per­ business of the courts of Kansas for the fiscal year end­ sas. If we seem proud in our presen­ computers to be the answer for cent, of the total caseload are two ing June 30, 1982, is submitted. tation, it is because we feel it is keeping track of case numbers, the years old or older. warranted. district courts are finding many other All categories of cases surpassed This executive summary may be read together with the Despite a burgeoning caseload, applications for them. the Supreme Court's time standards, annual statistical report. The statistical report contains judges continued to press on with Several districts are using com­ a record of achievement made pos­ the raw data of the courts' case load upon which this summary the goal of delivering quality and puters to generate most papers nec­ sible only through the cooperative is based. Additional copies of the statistical report are timely justice to Kansas citizens at essary for the flow of the cases, in­ efforts of all employees in the sys­ on file in the Office of Judicial Administration. the lowest possible cost. As with cluding summonses, aids in tem, as well as by attorneys involved many other states, Kansas was con­ execution, citations, trial docket in the cases. The statistical report and this executive summary of fronted with additional budget sheets, judges' minutes, bench war­ To maintain the quality of justice the statistical report would not be possible without the problems because of the lagging rants, garnishments, subpoenas, that Kansas citizens have come to dedication and hard work of the judges, clerks, and other economy. To keep pace, most em­ motion docket sheets, alias warrants expect, the Judicial Branch program employees of the Kansas Judicial Branch. ployees in the Judicial Branch were and even case jacket labels. All of of continuing education continued required to work both faster and that work used to require more time for all employee groups in the sys­ Respectfully, smarter. For several districts, the lat­ and money, two things that are in tem, including judges, clerks, court ter meant increasing automation and short supply in today's court system. reporters and court services officers. No"' .....} SC\Wo..~ eliminating duplication. Fiscal 1982 was the first full year A new approach in education was A new section in this year',; report Kansas operated under Supreme taken in 1982 when regional edu­ Howard Schwartz 86794 details the efforts made in each of Court time standards to reduce delay cational programs were undertaken U.S. Department of Justice Judicial Administrator the 30 judicial districts to better in the courts. A quick glance at the as a cost cutting measure. Besides National Institute of Justice manage the caseload without sacri- statistics in this report shows the the savings in travel and lodging, the This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the regional programs provided more person or organization originating it. POints of view or opinions stated In thiS document are those of the authors and do not necessarily individualized instruction. More re­ represent the offiCial position or policies of the National Institute of On The Cover Justice. gional seminars are on the drawing The Judicial Branch goal of delivering quality and speedy justice to boards for 1983. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Kansas citizens is increasingly being enhanced by the use of computers. On A complete set of the raw data on Kansas JUdicial Center the cover and section divider pages are vastly enlarged segments of an which this summary is based is on actual microprocessor, a computer chip that holds 30,000 transistors yet file in the Office of Judicial Admin­ occupies about the same space of a newborn's fingernail. A third of the istration, Kansas Judicial Center, to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). state's 30 judicial districts are heavily into computerized court business 301 W. 10th, Topeka, Kansas Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ while others are making plans to use them. Illustrations are by Janet Zoble. 66612. Telephone: (913) 296-2256. sion of the copyright owner. - I Supreme Court Administrative Chart Chief justice Supreme Court The Year •In Review Chief judge Court of Appeals / Office of District judicial Administrative Administration judges .; Examiners of Disciplinary Court Reporters Administrator Eleven Trial Trial judges Court Administrators 19 Chief Clerks f~·-~'·'-l t.~._~' n c::Ll F1 n '.1 2 Li ii "1 __ has conducted numerous educa­ Office of Judicial tional programs dealing with them. 1981 and February 1982. The Office of Judicial Administra­ Clerk of Assisting the Clerk is a volunteer Administration tion undertook staff responsibility for Kansas Board for Admission of At­ a new Supreme Court Education Appellate Courts torneys. Members include Donald Law Library The Office of Judicial Administra­ Advisory Committee charged with H. Corson, Jr., Kansas City; Donald tion, the Supreme Court's adminis­ examining the need for law-related TllP \lprk nf !\nnpll1tp Courts R Nevl'!,.-irk WirhitM • William Y. The State Law Library grew to trative arm, undertook a variety of education. processed increasing numbers of Chalfant, Hutchinson; Edward Lar­ 185,000 volumes during 1982. new projects during 1982 which As part of its work, the committee cases and motions during 1982 and son, Hays; Professor Raymond L. Under the direction of Fred were designed to improve the Kan­ polled each of the state's school found his numerous other responsi­ Spring, Topeka; Professor Deanell R. Knecht, Librarian, the I ibrary con­ s'as court system. districts. The results of that poll in­ bilities on the rise. Tacha, Lawrence; John H. Johntz, tinued to develop a specialized col­ A major project in the office was cluded the finding that 95 percent of The Clerk, Lewis C. Carter, is ap­ Olathe; Robert L. Briley, Chanute; lection of legal materials dealing the production of a slide presenta­ the 185 districts responding cited a pointed by the justices of the Su­ and Gene H. Sharp, Liberal. primarily with judicial administra­ tion designed to acquaint citizens definite need for including law­ preme Court for a two-year period During 1982, the Clerk's office tion. To enhance the availability of with the Kansas Judicial Branch and related education in the schools' The interd;x:rt J:."'gnment of and serves in the dual role as Clerk processed 897 motions filed in the this collection, the library began explain the importance of their role curriculum. judges is based upon another major of both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and 3,450 filed in publishing a Court-Related Acquisi­ as potential jurors. Based upon the committee's function of the Office of Judicial Supreme Court. the Court of Appeals. tions List on a quarterly basis. The presentation, "Images of Jus­ work, Chief Justice Alfred G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief of Estate and Heirs in SC97476
    Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI January 28, 2019 12:53 PM No. SC97476 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of Missouri ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- State of Missouri ex. rel. State of Kansas, Department for Children and Families, And Gina Meier-Hummel, Relators, v. The Honorable Charles H. McKenzie, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Respondent. ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- On Petition For Writ of Prohibition or, Alternatively, Writ of Mandamus ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ---------------------------------♦--------------------------------- Michaela Shelton Mo. No. 41952 Shelton Law Office, P.A. 10100 W. 87th Street Suite 303 Overland Park, Kansas 66212 (913) 341-3001; (913) 341-4289 (facsimile) [email protected] Attorney for Respondent ================================================================ Electronically Filed - SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI January 28, 2019 12:53 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………………2-5 Jurisdictional Statement……………………………………………………………..……7 Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………………….8-18 Argument…………………………………………………………………...….…….19-72 Standard of Review…………………………………………………………...19-21 RESPONSE TO POINT I: Relators failed to establish a clear right to an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims (against Relators) as a matter of comity because Kansas
    [Show full text]
  • The Kansas Judiciary
    2018 Kansas Directory The Kansas Judiciary Kansas Judicial Center 301 S.W. 10th Ave., Topeka 66612-1507 785-296-3229 www.kscourts.org Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice: Lawton R. Nuss Justices: Carol A. Beier, Dan Biles, Lee A. Johnson, Marla J. Luckert, Eric S. Rosen, Caleb Stegall The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest court in Kansas. It consists of seven justices, each of whom is selected by the governor from a list of three qualified individuals submitted by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission. After the first year in office, a justice is subject to a retention vote in the next general election. If a majority of electors votes to retain the justice, he or she remains in office for a term of six years. Justices are subject to a similar retention vote at the conclusion of each term. The justice who is senior in terms of continuous service is designated by the Kansas Constitution as the chief justice, unless he or she declines or resigns the position. The chief justice has general ad- ministrative supervision over the affairs of the court and of the unified judicial department of the state. Kansas Court of Appeals Chief Judge: Karen Arnold-Burger Judges: G. Gordon Atcheson, David E. Bruns, Michael B. Buser, Kathryn A. Gardner, Henry W. Green Jr., Stephen D. Hill, Steve A. Leben, Patrick D. McAnany, Thomas E. Malone, G. Joseph Pierron Jr., Anthony J. Powell, Kim R. Schroeder, Melissa Taylor Standridge The Kansas Court of Appeals consists of 14 judges. Candidates for appointment to the court of appeals apply to and are selected by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellate Practice Handbook
    KANSAS APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK 6TH EDITION KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL Subscription Information The Kansas Appellate Practice Handbook is updated on a periodic basis with supplements to reflect important changes in both statutory law and case law. Your purchase of this publication automatically records your subscription for the update service. If you do not wish to receive the supplements, you must inform the Judicial Council. You may contact the Judicial Council by e-mail at [email protected], by telephone at (785) 296-2498 or by mail at: Kansas Judicial Council 301 SW 10th, Ste. 140 Topeka, KS 66612 © 2019 KANSAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION This is the first edition of the Handbook since the advent of electronic filing of appellate cases. All prior editions, while containing some useful suggestions, are obsolete. With clear marching orders from our Supreme Court, all appellate attorneys must enroll and monitor their cases. Paper filing is now relegated to litigants that are unrepresented. Prompted by these massive changes we have consolidated some chapters and subjects and created new sections for electronic filing. But there is more to an appeal than just getting in the door. Scheduling, briefing, and pre- and post-opinion motion practice are dealt with. We sincerely hope that this work will be helpful to all who practice in this important area of the law. It is an attempt to open up the mysteries of electronic filing of appellate cases in Kansas. I must shout from the rooftops my praise for Christy Molzen with the Kansas Judicial Council, who has done all of the heavy lifting in putting this handbook together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wichita Massacre | SOURCES
    The Wichita Massacre | SOURCES “Heather Muller” - www.heatherscamp.org - By Tania Muller (sister) and Jill (Heitkotter) Crotty (sister in Delta Gamma) - March 2001 “Was This Kansas Killing Spree A Brotherly Affair?” - CNN.com - By Matt Bean - October 4, 2002 “D eputy Recalls Moment of Discovering Bodies “ - T he Wichita Eagle - By | Ron Sylvester – October 07, 2002 “C arr Trial: Survivor Describes Sexual Attacks by Armed Intruders” - The Topeka Capital-Journal - By - Roxana Hegeman – October 8, 2002 “W ichita Case of Black Racist Crime Survivor's Testimony Horrifies Courtroom ” - T he Wichita Eagle - By Ron Sylvester – October 09, 2002 “W oman Testifies That Carrs Killed Her Friends in a Soccer Field” - The Wichita Eagle - By| Ron Sylvester – October 10, 2002 “R eginald Carr Had $996, Victims' Credit Card, Watch” - The Wichita Eagle - By Hurst Laviana – October 11, 2002 “V ictims' Belongings Linked to Defendant” - T he Wichita Eagle - By Ron Sylvester – October 12, 2002 “Brutal Killings Grip Wichita Kansas” - The Edwardsville Intelligencer - By Roxana Hegeman - October 12, 2002 “Carjacking Victim Testifies in Murder Trial” - Lawrence Journal-World - No author listed - October 12, 2002 “T rial Opens Window Into Night of Fear” - The Wichita Eagle – By Ron Sylvester – October 13, 2002 “Witness: Suspected Killer Had Ring Stolen From Homicide Victims” - Arizona Daily Sun - no author listed - Oct 14, 2002 “I Was Afraid,' Witness Says” - The Wichita Eagle – By Ron Sylvester – October 15, 2002 “A TM Photos Shown in Carr trial” - The Topeka Capital-Journal/AP
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of the STATE of KANSAS No. 119,315
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 119,315 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRENT J. CARTER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A jury instruction must be both legally and factually appropriate. An instruction on the defendant's theory of defense is factually appropriate if there is sufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, for a rational fact-finder to find for the defendant on that theory. 2. Under K.S.A. 22-3203, multiple complaints against a defendant can be tried together if the State could have brought the charges in a single complaint under K.S.A. 22-3202(1). 3. K.S.A. 22-3202(1) permits joining multiple charges in a single complaint if the charges: (1) are of the same or similar character; (2) are part of the same act or transaction; or (3) result from two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. 1 4. For the purposes of K.S.A. 22-3202(1), charges are connected together when: (1) a defendant provides evidence of one crime while committing another; (2) some of the charges are precipitated by the other charges; or (3) all of the charges stem from a common event or goal. Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JEFFREY SYRIOS, judge. Opinion filed July 10, 2020. Affirmed. Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors
    Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors December 2006 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3594 Frank J. Marine, Consultant Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief Robert C. Dalton Merv Hamburg Gregory C.J. Lisa Melissa Marquez-Oliver David J. Stander Catherine M. Weinstock Cover Design by Linda M. Baer PREFACE This manual is intended to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation and litigation of cases involving the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) early in the preparation of their case for advice and assistance. All pleadings alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 including any indictment, information, or criminal complaint, and a prosecution memorandum must be submitted to OCRS for review and approval before being filed with the court. The submission should be approved by the prosecutor’s office before being submitted to OCRS. Due to the volume of submissions received by OCRS, prosecutors should submit the proposal three weeks prior to the date final approval is needed. Prosecutors should contact OCRS regarding the status of the proposed submission before finally scheduling arrests or other time-sensitive actions relating to the submission. Moreover, prosecutors should refrain from finalizing any guilty plea agreement containing a Section 1959 charge until final approval has been obtained from OCRS. The policies and procedures set forth in this manual and elsewhere relating to 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeals
    OFFICIALLY SELECTED CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Reporter: SARA R. STRATTON Advance Sheets 2d Series Volume 59, No. 1 Opinions filed in October-November 2020 Cite as 59 Kan. App. 2d Copyright 2020 by Sara R. Stratton, Official Reporter For the use and benefit of the State of Kansas JUDGES AND OFFICERS OF THE KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE: HON. KAREN ARNOLD-BURGER ………………… Overland Park JUDGES: HON. HENRY W. GREEN, JR. ................................... Leavenworth HON. THOMAS E. MALONE ............................................. Wichita HON. STEPHEN D. HILL....................................................... Paola HON. MICHAEL B. BUSER ..................................... Overland Park HON. MELISSA TAYLOR STANDRIDGE................... Overland Park HON. G. GORDON ATCHESON ..................................... Westwood HON. DAVID E. BRUNS .................................................... Topeka HON. ANTHONY J. POWELL ............................................ Wichita HON. KIM R. SCHROEDER .............................................. Hugoton HON. KATHRYN A. GARDNER ......................................... Topeka HON. SARAH E. WARNER ................................................ Lenexa OFFICERS: Reporter of Decisions ................................... SARA R. STRATTON Clerk ............................................................ DOUGLAS T. SHIMA Judicial Administrator ..........................................NANCY DIXON Disciplinary Administrator ......................
    [Show full text]
  • KANSAS V. MARSH
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KANSAS v. MARSH CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 04–1170. Argued December 7, 2005—Reargued April 25, 2006— Decided June 26, 2006 Finding three aggravating circumstances that were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, a Kansas jury convicted respondent Marsh of, inter alia, capital murder and sentenced him to death. Marsh claimed on direct appeal that Kan. Stat. Ann. §21–4624(e) establishes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death by directing impo- sition of the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circum- stances are in equipoise. Agreeing, the Kansas Supreme Court con- cluded that §21–4624(e)’s weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and remanded for a new trial. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Kansas Supreme Court’s judgment under 28 U. S. C. §1257. That provision authorizes review of a State’s final judgment when a state statute’s validity is questioned on federal constitutional grounds, and it permits review even when the state-court proceedings are not complete where the federal claim has been finally decided and later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the case’s outcome, Cox Broadcasting Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Order 2021-PR-009
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Administrative Order 2021-PR-009 Order Continuing Administrative Orders Suspending Statutes of Limitation, Statutory Time Standards, Deadlines, and Time Limitations Under the Legislature's Ratification and Continuation of the State of Disaster Emergency related to COVID-19 through March 31, 2021. As the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, I have issued multiple Administrative Orders under: • 2020 House Substitute for Senate Bill 102, which became effective upon its publication in the Kansas Register on March 19, 2020 (39 Kan. Reg. 304), and • the Legislature's amendments to 2020 House Substitute for Senate Bill 102, § 1, through 2020 Spec. Sess. House Bill 2016, § 24, which became effective upon its publication in the Kansas Register on June 9, 2020 (39 Kan. Reg. 755). This legislation allows me to "issue an order to extend or suspend any deadlines or time limitations established by statute." My administrative orders have coincided with the following: • 2020 Spec. Sess. House Bill 2016 ratified the state of disaster emergency declarations issued by the Governor and continued in existence the disaster emergency declaration issued for all 105 counties of Kansas, from March 12, 2020, through September 15, 2020. 2020 Spec. Sess. House Bill 2016, § 5, L. 2020 Spec. Session, Ch. 1, § 5. • On September 11, 2020, the State Finance Council voted to extend the state of disaster emergency through October 15, 2020. • On October 7, 2020, the State Finance Council voted to extend the state of disaster emergency from and including October 16, 2020, through November 15, 2020. 1 • On November 13, 2020, the State Finance Council voted to extend the state of disaster emergency from and including November 16, 2020, through December 15, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kansas Judiciary
    Office of the Secretary of State The Kansas Judiciary Kansas Judicial Center 301 S.W. 10th Ave., Topeka 66612-1507 785-296-3229 www.kscourts.org Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice: Marla J. Luckert Justices: Carol A. Beier, Dan Biles, Eric S. Rosen, Caleb Stegall, Keynen "KJ" Wall, Evelyn Z. Wilson The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest court in Kansas. It consists of seven justices, each of whom is selected by the governor from a list of three qualified individuals submitted by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission. After the first year in office, a justice is subject to a retention vote in the next general election. If a majority of electors votes to retain the justice, he or she remains in office for a term of six years. Justices are subject to a similar retention vote at the conclusion of each term. The justice who is senior in terms of continuous service is designated by the Kansas Constitution as the chief justice, unless he or she declines or resigns the position. The chief justice has general ad- ministrative supervision over the affairs of the court and of the unified judicial department of the state. Kansas Court of Appeals Chief Judge: Karen Arnold-Burger Judges: G. Gordon Atcheson, David E. Bruns, Michael B. Buser, Kathryn A. Gardner, Henry W. Green Jr., Stephen D. Hill, Steve A. Leben, Thomas E. Malone, G. Joseph Pierron Jr., Anthony J. Powell, Kim R. Schroeder, Melissa Taylor Standridge, Sarah Warner The Kansas Court of Appeals consists of 14 judges. Candidates for appointment to the court of appeals apply to and are selected by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,439 ALYSIA R. TILLMAN and STORM FLEETWOOD, Appellants, v. KATHERINE A. GOODPASTURE, D.O., Appellee. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT, Intervenor. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Determining whether a statute violates the Kansas Constitution is a question of law subject to unlimited review. 2. Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights declares, "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate." It applies to give the right to trial by jury on issues of fact so tried at common law as it existed at the time the Kansas Constitution was adopted, but no further. 3. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1906(a) does not violate section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. 1 4. Section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights guarantees for all persons, for injuries suffered in person, reputation, or property a "remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without delay." It does not create rights of action. It preserves the right to remedy by due process of law for civil causes of action recognized as justiciable by the common law as it existed at the time the Kansas Constitution was adopted. 5. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1906(a) does not violate section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 56 Kan. App. 2d 65, 424 P.3d 540 (2018). Appeal from Riley District Court; JOHN F. BOSCH, judge. Opinion filed April 30, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 09 Oct. Indep. Judiciary, KS Courts
    PUBLISHED BY THE KANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 2009 Editor:LAW Sarah Shipman, staff attorney, Silver LakeWISE Bank, Topeka Coordinators: Kathryn Gardner, a career law clerk to the Hon. Sam A. Crow, and Meg Wickham, Kansas Bar Association Greetings from the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Bar Association (KBA). Welcome to this edition of Law Wise and the second edition of the 2009-2010 school year. The theme of October’s edition is “A Civics Lesson” for educators. IN THIS ISSUE Welcome ................................................ 1 Welcome Calendar of Events ................................. 1 By Sarah Shipman, Law Wise editor Going Green .......................................... 1 ormer Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has launched a web-based civics Feducation initiative. When discussing the motives behind the creation Constitutional Rights Foundation .......... 2 of the program, Justice O’Connor has observed that most people can name the judges on American Idol but less than 15 percent of the general public Supreme Court Summer Institute .......... 4 can name a chief justice of the Supreme Court. A stated goal of the Law- Related Education Committee of the Kansas Bar Association is to provide Courts in Kansas .................................... 5 civics and law related information and resources for educators. This issue of Law Wise includes links to Justice O’Connor’s Web site, among others, an Law Wise Survey .................................... 6 article and lesson on the independence of the judiciary, information about the structure of the Kansas Court System, and information about an op- Capitol Roundtable Activity ................... 7 portunity for educators to study at the Supreme Court Summer Institute. New Kansas Courts Video Available ....... 7 Technology for Teachers ........................
    [Show full text]