Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Weinzirl v. the Wells Group, Inc.

234 Kan. 1016 (Kan. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Weinzirl v. the Wells Group, Inc.

24 Citing cases

  1. Beckman v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources

    30 Kan. App. 2d 606 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    Holding employer acted willfully because the reason given for withholding wages was "an after-thought and an excuse not to pay, contrived . . . with no relationship to a sincere belief . . . that the wages were rightfully withheld"

    Beckman asserts that the hearing officer, instead of making the correct finding, created a presumption that Beckman knew the law about payment of wages and held Beckman did not rebut this presumption. Beckman contends that this rebuttable presumption violates the rule established in Weinzirl v. The Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, 677 P.2d 1004 (1984).        In assessing the penalty, the hearing officer acknowledged his previous conclusion that Beckman's refusal to pay was contrary to law.

  2. Kephart v. Data Systems International, Inc.

    243 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Kan. 2003)   Cited 21 times
    In Kephart v. Data Systems International, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Kan. 2003) (Vratil, J.)("Kephart"), the Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, concluded that, to survive summary judgment, the non-movant's affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence.

    Parties have wide discretion in fixing the terms of employment contracts, and when the employment contract is not contrary to the law or unreasonable in terms, it should be honored and enforced by the courts. Weinzirl v. Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, 1019, 677 P.2d 1004, 1008 (1984). Kansas law permits an employer to impose a condition precedent on its obligation to pay an employee for wages; once an employee's right to earn wages becomes absolute, however, a condition subsequent cannot impose a forfeiture.

  3. Weir v. Anaconda Co.

    773 F.2d 1073 (10th Cir. 1985)   Cited 121 times
    Recognizing that in the Tenth Circuit, a movant must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party and that the movant must demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Kansas Supreme Court in construing the Kansas wage statutes has stated that "[i]n determining the rights which occur under an employment contract, the entitlement thereto or eligibility therefor, the terms of the contract control so long as they are not unreasonable or illegal." Weinzirl v. Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, 677 P.2d 1004, 1008 (1984); see Sweet v. Stormont Vail Regional Medical Center, 231 Kan. 604, 647 P.2d 1274, 1275 ¶ 1 (1982) (syllabus by the court); see also Mid America Aerospace, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources, 10 Kan. App. 2d 144, 694 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1985). Kansas law permits an employer to impose a condition precedent on its obligation to pay an employee for a benefit; however, once an employee's right to a benefit becomes absolute, a condition subsequent cannot impose a forfeiture.

  4. Spicin Foods, Inc. v. Maxfield

    126,855 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2024)

    Appellate courts generally enforce contracts according to their terms unless the terms are unreasonable or contrary to the law. Weinzirl v. The Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, 1019, 677 P.2d 1004 (1984); Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger, 62 Kan.App.2d 769, 773, 522 P.3d 364 (2022).

  5. Smith v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

    755 F. Supp. 354 (D. Kan. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    In Smith v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 1990 WL 58708 (D. Kan. 1990), the plaintiffs were salespersons for the defendant, claiming that the defendant breached a contractual promise to pay them according to the company's commission plan, and additionally asserted claims sounding in common-law fraud.

    In construing the above statute, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that "[i]n determining the rights which occur under an employment contract, the terms of the contract control so long as they are not unreasonable or illegal." Weinzirl v. Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, 1019, 677 P.2d 1004, 1008 (1984). Further, although Kansas law permits an employer to impose a condition precedent on its obligation to pay an employee wages, once an employee's right to earned wages becomes absolute, a condition subsequent cannot impose a forfeiture.

  6. Doan Family Corp. v. Arnberger

    522 P.3d 364 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing trial court's decision to reduce non-competition period from two years to one, emphasizing that “the noncompete clause did not prevent Arnberger from offering tax preparation services during that two-year period; she just could not provide those services to or otherwise solicit Doan's clients”

    People have "wide discretion" to determine the terms of their agreements, including in employment contracts. Weinzirl v. Wells Group, Inc. , 234 Kan. 1016, 1019, 677 P.2d 1004 (1984). Courts have a corresponding duty to honor and enforce employment contracts as they are written, as long as they are "not contrary to the law or unreasonable in [their] terms."

  7. Bhaduri v. L.M.K. Constr.

    123,731 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2022)

    A condition precedent is "'something that is agreed must happen or be performed before a right can occur to enforce the main contract.'" M West, Inc. v. Oak Park Mall, L.L.C., 44 Kan.App.2d 35, 46-47, 234 P.3d 833 (2010) (quoting Weinzirl v. The Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, Syl. ¶ 3, 677 P.2d 1004 [1984]). There are two types of conditions precedent: those related to the formation of the contract itself and those related to the obligation to perform under an existing contract.

  8. M West, Inc. v. Oak Park Mall

    44 Kan. App. 2d 35 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 37 times
    Explaining that, in Kansas, the doctrine of prevention is "an implied condition to not prevent performance or make it impossible for the other party to perform" under a contract

    Thus, a condition precedent is simply "something that is agreed must happen or be performed before a right can occur to enforce the main contract." Weinzirl v. The Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, Syl. ¶ 3, 677 P.2d 1004 (1984). Under our Supreme Court's definition, the presence of a condition precedent does not stymie the formation of a contract, but rather becomes part of the contract itself.

  9. A.O. Smith v. Dept. of Human Resources

    36 Kan. App. 2d 530 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining that the Kansas Court of Appeals has "held that where an employer's policies provide for payment of unused accrued vacation time upon termination, that payment constitutes wages under the KWPA"

    As noted above, it is well established that "willfulness" is a question of fact. Holder, 224 Kan. at 411, 582 P.2d 244; see Weinzirl, 234 Kan. at 1024, 677 P.2d 1004 (Herd, J., concurring and dissenting). The agency's finding of willfullness should be upheld where facts are stated to support the finding and the agency applied the correct legal standard.

  10. Mid America Aerospace, Inc. v. Department of Human Resources

    10 Kan. App. 2d 144 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    The Supreme Court has recently defined a "willful violation" under K.S.A. 44-315(b) as "one indicating a design, purpose, or intent on the part of a person to do wrong or to cause an injury to another." Weinzirl v. The Wells Group, Inc., 234 Kan. 1016, Syl. p 4, 677 P.2d 1004 (1984). See Holder v. Kansas Steel Built, Inc., 224 Kan. 406, 411, 582 P.2d 244 (1978).