Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided October 5, 2012No. 99,818Published

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

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Arizona v. GantSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Agostini v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

109 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