Bessie Loeda Harrison Vaughn (1924-2002) - Find A Grave Memorial

The Buzz on Harrison - County Attorney

The Estate likewise alleged negligence against Ted Ensley, Marice Kane, and Victor Miller, Shawnee County Commissioners, for stopping working to provide appropriately trained workers and treatments and to correctly guard and supervise Vaughn. In its last claim, the Estate declared the Shawnee County Commissioners were responsible under master/servant vicarious liability for the irresponsible conduct of their workers.

On May 25, 2006, the DOC filed a motion for summary judgment. In July 2006, the Estate filed its response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, on January 15, 2008, the district court released a remain in the Estate's case pending the appeal of a similar Shawnee County prisoner suicide case in Thomas v.

Vaughn Harrison Obituary - Brantford, Ontario - Dennis Toll Funeral Home  Limited

208, 262 P. 3d 336 (2011 ). After the Kansas Supreme Court chose Thomas on September 23, 2011, the district court renewed the Estate's case. The district court gave the DOC's movement to change its response to consist of the affirmative defense of res judicata based upon Kansas cases chose during the pending stay, particularly Thomas, 293 Kan.

Our Homepage of Judy Ann Harrison Vaughn - RootsWeb PDFs

Dickson, 290 Kan. 92, 223 P. 3d 786 (2010 ), and Estate of Belden v. Brown County, 46 Kan. App. 2d247, 261 P. 3d 943 (2011 ). After considering the motions and reactions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the DOC. The court concluded that all of the Estate's claims, except versus Rhone, were disallowed by res judicata based on the judgment approved to the DOC in the federal case.

The Estate appeals. Our basic standard of review for summary judgment is popular and frequently mentioned: "Summary judgment is suitable when the pleadings, depositions, responses to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no real concern regarding any material reality and that the moving celebration is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse celebration should step forward with evidence to establish a dispute regarding a product truth. In  Full Article  to preclude summary judgment, the realities based on the disagreement need to be material to the definitive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules [,] and where we discover sensible minds might differ regarding the conclusions drawn from the proof, summary judgment should be rejected.