Opinion ID: 745299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was There a Final Judgment on the Merits?

Text: 25 Our first inquiry is to determine whether there was a prior judgment on the merits which determined the rights and liabilities of the parties on the issue, based upon ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings and judgment. Id. at 128. The principal question here is whether the state trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs' motions to dismiss was sufficiently final to render those state decisions final for collateral estoppel purposes. It is well established law in Kansas that where a court has jurisdiction of the parties to an action and of the subject matter thereof, and renders a judgment within its competency, such judgment is final and conclusive, unless corrected or modified on appeal. McFadden v. McFadden, 187 Kan. 398, 357 P.2d 751, 755-56 (1960). 26 Furthermore, the Kansas courts have adopted the now-majority view regarding the pendency of appeals which provides that the fact that an appeal is pending in a case does not generally vitiate the res judicata effect of a judgment. See Willard v. Ostrander, 51 Kan. 481, 32 P. 1092, 1093-94 (1893); Munn v. Gordon, 87 Kan. 519, 125 P. 7, 8 (1912); see also, 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4433, at 308 (1981) (noting established rule in federal courts is that a final judgment retains all of its res judicata consequences pending decision of the appeal). 27 In the present case, the Shawnee County District Court fully considered the plaintiffs' bad faith claims which were raised in four of the plaintiffs' motions to dismiss and disqualify Ms. Hamilton and all her assistants as prosecutors. The state district court first addressed this issue in the Jonathan Phelps case. After conducting two evidentiary hearings in which 42 witnesses testified and over 70 exhibits were admitted, the trial judge denied the motion in a written order, finding that [t]here is no credible evidence of prejudice on the part of Hamilton against this defendant, and there is no credible evidence that defendant is being treated unfairly. Aple's App., vol. V, at 836 (Order denying defendant's motion to disqualify, dated April 9, 1993). This decision was then certified by the judge as a final decision for interlocutory appeal. See id. at 837 (Certification for interlocutory appeal, dated Apr. 9, 1993). In later proceedings on the identical motions of Charles Hockenbarger, Karl Hockenbarger, and Fred Phelps, a second trial judge considered the full record of the Jonathan Phelps proceeding and similarly denied the motions to dismiss and disqualify Ms. Hamilton. See id. at 865-866 (Supplemental Order dated July 15, 1993). Because the plaintiffs' bad faith claims were fully addressed by two state trial judges who denied each of these four plaintiffs' motions to dismiss and disqualify Ms. Hamilton, this issue is final under Kansas law until such time that it is modified on direct appeal. 28