Legal Opinion · Dissent

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 23, 2011No. 99,506Published

1DissentGreene, C.J.

I respectfully dissent because I believe the majority has fundamentally erred in dismissing the appeal based solely on the perception that the consent judgments have become dormant. First, I suggest that the dormancy period has been tolled by K.S.A. 60-2403(c) as a result of and ever since this court’s decision in Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., v. Americold Corp., 261 Kan. 806, 934 P.2d 65 (1997) (Americold I). Second, the dormancy or extinction of the consent judgments was an affirmative defense that was never pled or preserved in the pretrial order by Northwestern Pacific Indemnity…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Bush v. StrainCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
  2. State v. GraceySupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  3. Fort Hays State University v. Fort Hays State University ChapterSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
  4. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1997
  5. Slayden v. SixtaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API