Kansas Judicial Branch
The Kansas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases during a special session in Concordia on Tuesday evening.
The court session is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. to about 8 p.m. Tuesday in Concordia High School. The court will greet the public in an informal reception following oral arguments.
Cases to be heard during the special session are briefly summarized below. Detailed summaries, and briefs filed by attorneys involved in these cases, are available on the court's traveling docket page.
Appeal No. 124,348: Cathy L. Stroud v. Ozark National Insurance Co. and Stephen I. Guinn
Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Stroud appeals the trial court’s order granting Ozark National Life Insurance Co. and Guinn’s summary judgment motion, resulting in the dismissal of her breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and vicarious liability claims. Stroud contends Guinn, her deceased husband’s former insurance agent, violated his fiduciary duty to her husband and her when advising about converting her husband’s term life insurance into whole life insurance. She also challenges the trial court’s ruling that she was not the real party in interest under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-217(a)(l) to bring her claims. For these reasons, she argued the trial court erred by dismissing her vicarious liability claim.
Issues on review concern whether the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Stroud's claims.
Appeal No. 123,559:State of Kansas v. Frank Raymond Crudo
Geary County: (Petition for Review) A jury convicted Crudo of multiple drug charges after a traffic stop and a subsequent search of his pickup truck and attached fifth-wheel camper. The district court granted Crudo’s motion for a dispositional departure and sentenced him to 36 months’ probation with an underlying 108-month prison term.
Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals improperly allowed the probable cause tied to the pickup to be the basis for searching the camper; 2) Lieutenant Ricard gave expert testimony concerning the drug trade and he was required to be disclosed under K.S.A. 22-3212(b)(l); 3) the improper inference instruction reduced the burden on the State to prove its case and is not harmless; 4) there was unity of conduct barring the State from bringing multiple charges against Crudo and retrying him after a conviction for simple possession at the first trial; and 5) cumulative error denied Crudo a fair trial.