Opinion ID: 2637971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: district judge's factual findings

Text: Next, we consider Long's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the district court's conclusion that McCormick failed to prove causation between Long's action in swearing out the probable cause affidavit and his arrest by University of Kansas officers. Long argues that under this court's standards of review, the Court of Appeals was not free to disregard the district court's factual findings in this regard, citing R.B. Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 242 Kan. 241, 747 P.2d 152 (1987). There, we stated: Findings of fact by the district court which are supported by substantial competent evidence will not be disturbed by this court. 242 Kan. at 248. The Court of Appeals held that causation was pled within the four corners of McCormick's petition. 28 Kan. App.2d at 150. We agree. Paragraph 23 of McCormick's petition states that the incident was in large part, caused by the `wanton or malicious negligence' of Ms. Long ... in first issuing a fraudulent `warrant' for plaintiff for `felony stalking,' and then in not immediately informing the KUPD that said `warrant' had been retracted. Upon review of a motion to dismiss, this court is required to assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true. Thus, the district court's finding of no causation was unsupported. The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that whether the officers relied on the arrest warrant in detaining McCormick is a factual question which survives a motion to dismiss. See 28 Kan. App.2d at 750.