TOPEKA—Judge William Mahoney of the 29th Judicial District has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court's September 14-18 docket conducted entirely by videoconference.
Oral arguments will be livestreamed on the Supreme Court YouTube channel.
After hearing oral arguments, Hauber will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.
"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Mahoney hearing a case with us. He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision," said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. "We thank Judge Mahoney for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload in district court to handle."
Mahoney was elected a district judge in 2010 in the 29th Judicial District, composed of Wyandotte County.
"When I became a judge, I noticed how different it was from being an attorney, and now I look forward to seeing how different it is to sit with a panel of judges," Mahoney said. “I am honored the chief justice invited me to sit with the Supreme Court.”
Mahoney graduated in 1986 with a bachelor's degree in political science from Texas Christian University. After graduating from the University of Kansas Law School in 1989, he spent four years as an active duty naval officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps in Philadelphia, as a prosecutor, defense counsel, legal assistance officer, and claims officer. He returned to his hometown of Kansas City, Kansas, and was in private practice until he became a judge.
Mahoney will hear one case at 9 a.m. on the September 18 docket:
Appeal No. 118,307: In the Matter of the Estate of Lanny Lentz
Shawnee County: (Petition for Review) Lentz' three adult daughters were heirs to his estate, which included several real properties, four of which are at issue. The district court distributed two of the properties to Diann Wyatt and the other two properties to Lana Kennedy and Marilyn Lentz as joint tenants in common. Wyatt appealed the district court's valuation of the four properties. The Court of Appeals concluded Wyatt's appeal was not filed in a timely fashion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals also held even if it reached the merits of Wyatt's issues on appeal, the court found she did not properly raise them before the district court and they were not property preserved for appellate review. Issues on review are whether: 1) Wyatt timely appealed the district court's decision on valuation; 2) Wyatt properly preserved the issues for appellate review; and 3) the district court made a proper determination of the valuation of the properties.