 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bledsoe v. State, No. 95,396,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not denied the right to a fair trial because, although there were episodes when counsel's performance fell below the constitutional threshold of objective reasonableness, Sixth Amendment, he did not demonstrate that the failings considered collectively so undermined the fairness of his trial as to impair confidence in its outcome.
|
|||||
| Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P., No. 96,793,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Three-year statutory period in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-512(2) applied to employee's wrongful termination claim against her employer filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 1140, because ERISA clearly created the liability described in § 1140.
|
|||||
| In re Hasenbank, No. 97,218,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was suspended from practicing law for one year, his suspension was stayed, and he was placed on a 4-year supervised probation as he violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 in several instances regarding several different clients.
|
|||||
| In re Lazzo, No. 97,219,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was censured for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(d) and Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) by submitting a name change petition for a fugitive from justice for sex crimes against children in Colorado because he did not verify that the criminal case had been resolved or inform the trial judge of the pending charges.
|
|||||
| In re Wiles, No. 97,221,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 3.2, 3.4(d), 8.4(c)-(d) as he engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving several clients, over a long period of time, and had already been disciplined on 11 prior occasions, including disbarment in another state.
|
|||||
| Korytkowski v. City of Ottawa, No. 95,483,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an inverse condemnation action, summary judgment for city and Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) was proper because ample evidence was presented to support projects' reasonableness, and no rebuttal evidence was presented. There was no physical taking of property, and projects left property owners with same access to abutting roadway.
|
|||||
| LSF Franchise REO I, LLC. v. Emporia Rests., Inc., No. 93,622,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Debtor could not demonstrate what proportion of the money in either account was actually held in trust for employee taxes as required under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-735(c), 60-738(b) and therefore the accounts were subject to garnishment. The debtor's president testified that the accounts were used for a number of purposes other than payroll taxes.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Bartle, No. 95,418,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners' appeal from the department of transportation's condemnation action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to consider any issue other than the compensation due under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 26-513, and the owners raised only these extraneous issues in their appeal.
|
|||||
| Reese v. Muret, No. 92,809, 92,810,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied a widow's motion for genetic testing in appellee's suit under Kansas Parentage Act for determination that decedent was her father because under Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1118(a), court was required conduct hearing prior to issuing order for genetic testing to determine whether genetic testing was in best interests of appellee.
|
|||||
| State v. Bastian, No. 95,651,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 15 were violated when his pockets were searched by officers who had detained him because there was no probable cause to do so; the pat-down search authorized under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2402(2) was not the same as a pocket search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
