Law in Plain English: Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado

Argument: Oct 14 2014 (Aud.)

Bridge across the Republican River near Riverton, Nebraska

Background: In an original action, Kansas sought a remedy both for Nebraska’s breach in 2006 of the 1943 Republican River Compact and for what Kansas claimed is Nebraska’s likely continued breach of that Compact in the future. Kansas argued that Nebraska’s conduct also violated a prior decree of the Court approving an earlier settlement among the parties. Nebraska, in turn, both opposed Kansas’ claims and asserted a counterclaim seeking to correct what it claims is a mistake in the accounting procedures used under the terms of that earlier settlement agreement. A Special Master appointed by the Court recommended that the Court declare Nebraska to have breached the 1943 Compact by consuming a total of 70,869 acre-feet of water in excess of its Compact allocation in 2005 and 2006; that the Court enter judgment against Nebraska and in favor of Kansas in the amount of $5,500,000; that the Court otherwise deny Kansas’claims for relief; and that the Court order the accounting procedures used by the states reformed to correct a mistake.

Documents filed with the Special Master are available here.

Issue: The question before the Court is whether Nebraska violated a compact apportioning the waters of the Republican River between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado; if so, what relief is appropriate to remedy the violation.

Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that Nebraska “knowingly failed” to comply with its Settlement obligations, and disgorgement is an appropriate remedy for Nebraska’s breach.

Is a pellet gun a firearm?

State of Kansas v. Timothy Wayne Craddick

Docket No.	Opinion Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
No. 108,335	N/A	N/A	Nov 1 2013	3-0	Pierron	N/A

Plain English Summary: Craddick pointed his Ruger Air Hawk pellet rifle at his victims and threatened to shoot them if they did not put his dog on the ground (they had tried to pet his dog after it approached them while they were walking). He was convicted of attempted aggravated assault. The district court found that Craddick had committed his crimes with a firearm, which triggered a presumptive prison sentence under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6804(h). Applying this firearm rule, Craddick was sentenced to a controlling term of 11 months' imprisonment. The question before the Kansas Court of Appeals was whether a pellet gun was a firearm for purposes of K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6804(h).

Ruger Air Hawk pellet rifle

Holding: The Kansas Legislature defined firearm as "any weapon designed or having the capacity to propel a projectile by force of an explosion or combustion." Therefore, a pellet rifle is not a firearm because rather than propelling projectiles by force of an explosion or combustion, it propels projectiles by force of air or gas. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated Craddick's sentence and remanded it to the trial court for resentencing. It is important to note that this decision doesn't overturn his conviction. Craddick will be sentenced for two counts of attempted aggravated assault, but without the firearm enhancement.

News Coverage

• Lawrence Journal-World (Nov 1 2013)
• Topeka Capital-Journal (Nov 1 2013)