Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 97,494.
Citation | 221 P.3d 1130 |
Decision Date | 11 December 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 97,494.,97,494. |
Parties | Kenneth E. UNRUH and Robert K. Carter, Appellees, v. PURINA MILLS, LLC, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Matthew M. Merrill, of Brown & Dunn, P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Julie J. Gibson, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Randall K. Rathbun, of Depew Gillen Rathbun & McInteer LC, of Wichita, argued the cause, and, Jack Scott McInteer, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
On review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Unruh v. Purina Mills, No. 97,494, 2008 WL 7297075, unpublished opinion filed June 27, 2008, Purina Mills, LLC, appeals from the jury verdict and award of attorney fees entered against it in a breach of warranties and Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623 et seq. action involving feed supplements supplied to two cattle ranchers.
A comparison with the record on appeal establishes that the statement of facts contained in the decision of the Court of Appeals is accurate and sufficient for purposes of review, as follows:
Purina took a timely appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that insufficient evidence supported the KCPA claims and the resulting award of attorney fees. Slip op. at 18-19. Judge Malone dissented in part and would have affirmed the district court on all issues. Slip op. at 23 (Malone, J., concurring and dissenting). Both parties filed petitions for review. The plaintiffs sought review of a ruling relating to the definition of willfulness under the KCPA. Purina sought review of rulings relating to the jury verdict form and the testimony of the plaintiffs on causation. This court granted review on all issues. See Supreme Court Rule 8.03(g)(1) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66); Troutman v. Curtis, 286 Kan. 452, 457, 185 P.3d 930 (2008) ( ).
The district court joined Unruh's and Carter's claims in a single cause of action. Purina argues that joinder constituted reversible error because Unruh and Carter initially stated different theories of causation; they engaged in different farm management practices; and Carter had to rely on evidence introduced by Unruh to support his claims of misrepresentation. The Court of Appeals found the district court did not abuse its discretion in joining the claims. Unruh, slip op. at 15-18.
The standard of review for a district court decision to consolidate cases for trial is abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328, 352, 76 P.3d 1000 (2003) ( ); Tuley v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 252 Kan. 205, 217, 843 P.2d 248 (1992) ( ); Loucks v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 33 Kan.App.2d 288, 302, 101 P.3d 1271 (2004), rev. denied 279 Kan. 1006 (200...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hernandez v. Pistotnik
...unreasonable. Whether a district court has the authority to impose sanctions presents a question of law. Unruh v. Purina Mills , 289 Kan. 1185, 1200, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). To the extent that this issue requires statutory interpretation, it presents a question of law over which we have unlim......
-
Gannon v. State, 113,267.
...appellate courts disregard any conflicting evidence or other inferences that might be drawn from the evidence. Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1196, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009)."The panel's conclusions of law based on those findings are subject to unlimited review. [Citation omitted.]" Ganno......
-
Gannon v. State
... ... Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1196, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). The panel's ... ...
-
Gaumer v. Truck
...does not engage in an examination of legislative history unless the language of a statute is ambiguous. See Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1194, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009) (citing In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53, 79, 169 P.3d 1025 [2007], cert. denied sub nom Hendrix v. Harrington, 555 U.S. 937,......
-
The Collateral Source Rule After Martinez v. Milburn
...JJ., dissenting). [75] Id. [76] Id. at *110. [77] K.S.A. 60-406 (2009). [78] PIK Civ. 4th 102.40, Notes on Use. [79] 289 Kan. 1185, 1198, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). [80] Id. at 1198. [81] Id. at 1199. [82] Some district judges have issued the following instruction in these cases: Instruction No.......
-
The Collateral Source Rule After Martinez v. Milburn
...JJ., dissenting). [75] Id. [76] Id. at *110. [77] K.S.A. 60-406 (2009). [78] PIK Civ. 4th 102.40, Notes on Use. [79] 289 Kan. 1185, 1198, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009). [80] Id. at 1198. [81] Id. at 1199. [82] Some district judges have issued the following instruction in these cases: Instruction No.......