Remembering Deborah Rhode: Co-Author, Friend, and Feminist Co-Conspirator

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, KATHARINE BARTLETT, DEBORAH L. BRAKE

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman, Duke Law professor Katharine T. Bartlett, and Pitt Law professor Deborah L. Brake reflect on the life and achievements of Professor Deborah Rhode, who recently passed away. Professors Grossman, Bartlett, and Brake describe Professor Rhode’s countless contributions to the legal academy and to the fight for gender equity.

Read More

Johnson v. U.S. Food Service

Docket: 117725

Opinion Date: January 8, 2021

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

In this workers compensation case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-510e(a)(2)(B) was unconstitutional on its face, holding that the statute is constitutional. Appellant was injured during his employment and filed for workers compensation benefits. A doctor rated Appellant's permanent partial impairment using the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides, as adopted by the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. See section 44-510e(a)(2)(B). The court of appeals reversed, holding that the statute's use of the Sixth Edition was unconstitutional on its face because it changed the essential legal standard for determining functional impairment. The Supreme Court reversed after construing the ambiguous statutory language to avoid the constitutional question, holding that the language of section 44-510e(a)(2)(B) referencing the Sixth Edition can reasonably be interpreted as a guideline rather than a mandate.

State v. Hooks

Docket: 119881

Opinion Date: January 8, 2021

Judge: Wall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court declined to retain Appellant's appeal under the "unique circumstances doctrine" and refused to make factual findings, holding that remand was required for factual findings regarding the circumstances of the untimeliness of Appellant's notice of appeal. Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Later, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence and argued that he was entitled to relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. The district judge denied the motion. Appellant filed a late notice of appeal, but the district judge did not make any findings on the record about the circumstances of the untimely appeal on the record. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, holding (1) because the unique circumstances doctrine was eliminated as a source of appellate jurisdiction in 2011 it could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction in this case; and (2) maintaining jurisdiction on other due process-related grounds would require this Court to make factual findings, which this Court declines to do.

State v. McNabb

Docket: 120390

Opinion Date: January 8, 2021

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a downward durational departure from the presumptive hard fifty sentence for his convictions for two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion. Defendant pled no contest to two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, felony theft, and interference with law enforcement. Before sentencing, Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a downward durational departure from the presumptive hard fifty sentence for the murders. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a downward durational departure.