From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elliot v. Dillon Companies

Supreme Court of Kansas
Jul 12, 1996
918 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1996)

Summary

distinguishing a case that rejected a claim that employees could bring common-law actions for fraud in interpreting K.S.A. 44-5,121 (1993 Furse) because it did not interpret a statute which authorizes a cause of action to recover economic loss resulting from fraudulent or abusive conduct

Summary of this case from In re Doe

Opinion

No. 73,478

Opinion filed on July 12, 1996

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WORKERS COMPENSATION — Fraudulent or Abusive Act — Statutory Cause of Action by Claimant.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 21 Kan. App. 2d 908, 908 P.2d 1345 (1996). Appeal from Ford district court; JAY DON REYNOLDS, judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. Opinion filed July 12, 1996.

Bryce A. Abbott, of Hershberger, Patterson, Jones Roth, L.C., of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

John D. Shultz, of Shultz Associates, P.A., of Dodge City, argued the cause, and Donald E. Shultz, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee.


The opinion of the court was delivered by


This is an interlocutory appeal by defendants from the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The single issue in this case is whether a workers compensation claimant may bring a cause of action under K.S.A. 44-5,121. The district court certified that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2102(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motions. Elliott v. Dillon Companies, 21 Kan. App. 2d 908, 908 P.2d 1345 (1996). Appellants' petition for review was granted by this court on March 14, 1996.

We have reviewed the briefs, the arguments, and the record in this case, and we conclude the Court of Appeals was correct. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm both the Court of Appeals and the district court.

ABBOTT, J., not participating.

ROBERT H. MILLER, C.J. Retired, assigned.

REPORTER'S NOTE: Chief Justice Robert H. Miller, Retired, was appointed to hear case No. 73,478 vice Justice Abbott pursuant to the authority vested in the Supreme Court by K.S.A. 20-2616.


Summaries of

Elliot v. Dillon Companies

Supreme Court of Kansas
Jul 12, 1996
918 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1996)

distinguishing a case that rejected a claim that employees could bring common-law actions for fraud in interpreting K.S.A. 44-5,121 (1993 Furse) because it did not interpret a statute which authorizes a cause of action to recover economic loss resulting from fraudulent or abusive conduct

Summary of this case from In re Doe
Case details for

Elliot v. Dillon Companies

Case Details

Full title:GLORIA FALCON ELLIOTT, Appellee, v. DILLON COMPANIES, TRANSPORTATION…

Court:Supreme Court of Kansas

Date published: Jul 12, 1996

Citations

918 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1996)
918 P.2d 1305

Citing Cases

In re Doe

K.S.A. 44-5,120(d) (1993 Furse) (Emphasis added.) The statute defines fraudulent or abusive acts or practices…

Excel Corporation v. Jimenez

These provisions were designed to afford a remedy to those who are damaged by fraudulent acts or practices in…