31 Kan. App. 2d
Volume 31 — Kansas Court of Appeals Reports, Second Series
150 opinions
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1Palmer v. LINDBERG HEAT TREATING AND INS. CO. STATE OF PA (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 5Anderson v. Scarlett Auto Interiors (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 13Peterson v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 24In Re MK (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 24In the Interest of M. K. (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 31In re the Marriage of Allen (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 38State v. Winters (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 43Smith v. McKune (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 45State v. Sprinkle (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 54State ex rel. Riley County Police Department v. $1,489.00 U.S. Currency (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 61Coffman v. State (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 68State v. Corbett (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 77Gilkey v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 84Gilkey v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 89Med James, Inc. v. Barnes (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 102Ferguson v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 108Butera v. Fluor Daniel Construction Corp. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 117Carlson Auction Services, Inc. v. Lopez (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 127Cavender v. PIP Printing, Inc. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 135State v. Sammons (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 138State v. Hendricks (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 146State ex rel. Secretary of Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Hartzog (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 149State v. Griffin (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 157Cousatte v. Collins (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 164In Re the Marriage of Sell (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 168Gardin v. Emporia Hotels, Inc. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 177University of Kansas Memorial Corp. v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 184Moore v. Dudley (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 192State ex rel. Secretary of Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Davison (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 202State v. Blair (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 211Evans v. Frakes Trucking (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 217Davenport Pasture, LP v. Morris County Board of County Commissioners (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 217Davenport Pasture, LP v. MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF MORRIS COUNTY COMM'RS (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 226STATEWIDE AGENCIES, INC. v. Diggs (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 237Harris v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 241In re the Estate of Petesch (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 250Johnson County Auto Credit, Inc. v. Green (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 259Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 278State v. Clubb (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 284State v. Ward (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 293State v. Brice (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 311Ferguson v. Smith (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 318Davis Electric, Inc. v. Showalter (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 322Money v. Fort Hays State University Endowment Ass'n (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 328State v. Perez-Moran (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 331In Re the Marriage of Doetzl (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 338State v. Garcia (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 344State v. Dozal (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 350State v. Layton (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 357State v. Stewart (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 360City of Wichita v. Marlett (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 366City of Mulvane v. Roberts (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 372State v. Davidson (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 388State v. Prater (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 398McNabb Ex Rel. Foshee v. McNabb (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 410Comstock v. Joplin (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 416State v. Hinkle (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 419Brown v. Farmers Insurance (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 426City of Kingman v. Lubbers (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 430State v. George (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 436State v. McAdam (2003)
<center> SYLLABUS BY THE COURT</center>1. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Sufficiency of Evidence — Appellate Review.</italic> When sufficiency of the evidence is attacked, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. SAME — <italic>Conspiracy — Element Requiring Agreement between Two</italic> <italic>or More Persons.</italic> The first element of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit or assist in committing a crime. The agreement can be either expressed or implied. 3. SAME — <italic>Conspiracy — Element Requiring Agreement between Two</italic> <italic>or More Persons.</italic> The second element for the crime of conspiracy is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This overt act must be alleged and proved to have been committed by the defendant or by a coconspirator. The overt act must accompany or follow an agreement to commit or assist in committing a crime and must be done in furtherance of the object of the agreement. 4. SAME — <italic>Circumstantial Evidence — Sufficient for Convictions.</italic> A conviction of even the gravest offense may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. 5. SAME — <italic>Attempt to Commit Crime — "Overt Act" Construed.</italic> An attempt is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime. There is no definite rule for what constitutes an overt act, but it must be beyond mere preparation, yet less than completion of the offense. 6. SAME — <italic>Unlawful Possession of Anhydrous Ammonia — State's</italic> <italic>Burden of Proof.</italic> When a defendant is charged with unlawful possession of anhydrous ammonia under K.S.A. <cross_reference>65-4152</cross_reference>(a)(4), the State is required to show that the container used in the commission of that crime had not been approved by the Kansas Department of Agriculture. 7. SAME — <italic>Jury Instructions — Failure of Trial Court to Give</italic> <italic>Instructions Not Requested by Defendant — Clearly Erroneous</italic> <italic>Standard of Appellate Review.</italic> When a defendant does not request an instruction, the trial court's failure to give it will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced that there is a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the trial error had not occurred.<page_number>Page 437</page_number> 8. SAME — <italic>Sentencing — Illegal Sentence — Appellate Court's</italic> <italic>Correction of Illegal Sentence at Any Time.</italic> K.S.A. <cross_reference>22-3504</cross_reference>(l) allows appellate courts to correct an illegal sentence at any time. An illegal sentence is one imposed by a court without jurisdiction, a sentence which does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized, or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. 9. SAME — <italic>Sentencing — Conviction for Two Identical Offenses.</italic> When two offenses are identical, a defendant can only be sentenced under the offense with the lesser penalty. 10. STATUTES — <italic>Penal Statutes — Construction in Favor of Accused</italic> <italic>— Legislative Intent — Appellate Review.</italic> Although criminal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the accused, judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent. 11. SAME — <italic>Construction — Appellate Review.</italic> The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and this court's review is unlimited.
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 448In re the Appeal of Polaroid ID Systems, Inc. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 457Nicholas v. Nicholas (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 478Hinds v. Estate of Huston (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 484Wright v. Shepherd (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 492State v. Meinert (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 501State v. Liebau (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 509State v. Reider (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 513Bates v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 519State v. Owens (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 522Foos v. Terminix (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 532Cummings v. City of Lakin (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 536In re C.L.A. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 544Gaskill v. Fort Hays State University (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 548State v. James (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 556Davis v. Simmons (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 563Graham v. Cirocco (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 574Musse v. Garcia (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 579Snoddy v. McKune (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 584Brull v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 591State v. Benoit (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 597White v. Tomasic (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 606State v. Zeiner (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 609State v. Romero (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 613In Re the Marriage of Wagner (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 618State v. Manbeck (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 623In Re the Marriage of Metz (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 631Price v. Simmons (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 635State v. Groves (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 639Stolte v. Cummings (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 645City of Norton v. Stewart (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 650J.P. Asset Co. v. City of Wichita (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 658In the Interest of J.D. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 658In Re JD (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 668Van Dyke v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 681State v. Spencer (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 687State v. Johnson (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 694Kitchen v. Schmedeman (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 698Krueger v. Board of Woodson County Comm'rs (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 706State v. Abbott (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 717State v. Huff (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 725State v. Hatchel (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 728Wilson v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 737Worley v. Bradford Pointe Apartments, Inc. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 746In Re the Marriage of Day (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 760Rural Telephone Service Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 772Sharp v. Custom Campers, Inc. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 778Edwards v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 786In Re the Estate of Milward (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 794State v. Seems (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 798Millennium Financial Services, L.L.C. v. Thole (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 812Summitt v. Summitt (2003)
<center> SYLLABUS BY THE COURT</center>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — <italic>Jurisdiction — Appellate Review.</italic> Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law over which an appellate court's scope of review is unlimited. 2. STATUTES — <italic>Construction — Appellate Review.</italic> Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the appellate court's review is unlimited. An appellate court is not bound by the district court's interpretation of a statute. 3. UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ACT — <italic>Inconsistent</italic> <italic>Support Orders in Multiple States — Original Order Not</italic> <italic>Nullified Unless Specifically Provided by Responding State.</italic> Under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, now repealed, a support obligation entered in one state was not nullified by an inconsistent order being entered in another state. Rather, to have that effect, the responding state's order must specifically provide it was nullifying the original order. 4. UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT — <italic>State Issuing</italic> <italic>Original Support Order Maintains Continuing Exclusive</italic> <italic>Jurisdiction over Order When Certain Conditions Exist.</italic> Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, a state issuing a support order maintains continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the order as long as a party resides in that state, or until both parties consent for a different state to assume jurisdiction. 5. JUDGMENTS — <italic>Child Support — Application of Dormancy Statute.</italic> Child support judgments are subject to the dormancy statute. 6. SAME — <italic>Dormancy Statute — Support Enforcement Proceeding</italic> <italic>Construed.</italic> Under the Kansas dormancy statute, a support enforcement proceeding is any civil proceeding to enforce any judgment for payment of child support or maintenance. 7. SAME — <italic>Dormancy Statute — Child Support Judgments</italic> <italic>Extinguished if Remain Dormant 2 Years after Child's</italic> <italic>Emancipation.</italic> Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished. Child support judgments are not extinguished, however, until they remain dormant for 2 years after the child's emancipation. 8. PARENT AND CHILD — <italic>Child Support — Jurisdiction of Court to</italic> <italic>Determine Support Arrearages — Child Support Judgments Not</italic> <italic>Dormant under Facts of Case.</italic> Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the district court did not err (1) in finding that it had jurisdiction to determine the amount of child<page_number>Page 813</page_number> support arrearages; and (2) in finding that the child support judgments had not become dormant.
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 820Schoen v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 825State v. Barnes (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 828Columbus Telephone Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 837City of Wichita v. Smith (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 846Littrice v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 853State v. Bunyard (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 873State v. Jeffrey (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 884Penn-America Insurance v. Johnson ex rel. Johnson (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 889Persimmon Hill First Homes Ass'n v. Lonsdale (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 897State v. Legero (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 906Starr v. Union Pacific Railroad (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 916Avriett v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 919Patterson v. Allstate Insurance (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 923Lopez v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 929Newman v. Kansas Enterprises (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 934Haywood v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (2002)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 943Lloyd v. Quorum Health Resources, L.L.C. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 957Gibson v. Cummings (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 964Rice v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 979A & S Rental Solutions, Inc. v. Kopet (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 984Smith v. McKune (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 998Pieplow v. State (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1002Home Telephone Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1017In re J.A.B. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1025State v. Reed (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1030State v. Deffebaugh (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1040State v. Rhodes (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1044Tallman v. Case Corp. (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1055Offerman v. Rosile (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1063Stone v. U.S.D. No. 222 (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1071Siler v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1078State v. Davis (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1087State v. Purdy (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1091Magstadtova v. Magstadt (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1098Zukel v. Great West Managers, LLC (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1107Associated Press v. Sebelius (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1123State v. Campbell (2003)
- 31 Kan. App. 2d 1138State v. Robards (2003)