Miller v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBeier, J.
I agree with the majority’s resolution of the nonconstitutional issues in this case. I also agree with the majority’s determination that the statutoiy cap on noneconomic damages does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. I would, however, reverse and remand to the district court because K.S.A. 60-19a02, as applied to plaintiff Amy C. Miller, violates the right to trial by juiy of Section 5 and the right to remedy provision of Section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Given my certainty about these constitutional infir*690mities, I reserve judgment on the merit of Miller s…
2Cases cited114 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Arizona v. GantSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Agostini v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.