 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alpha Med. Clinic v. Anderson, No. 93,383,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Concerning a Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3101 judicial inquisition regarding allegations against medical clinics of unjustified late-term abortions and unreported child sexual abuse, judge erred in ordering production of unredacted patient files; order did not do all it could to narrow the information gathered to safeguard it from unauthorized disclosure.
|
|||||
| Evenson Trucking Co. v. Aranda, No. 91,311,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While standard of review for sanctions under § 60-211(c) was substantial evidence rather than abuse of discretion, court of appeals overlooked district court's finding that insurer did not receive police report until after suit was filed. Substantial evidence supported finding that insurer received defendant's denial letter.
|
|||||
| In re Foster, No. 91,324,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Opening statement in KSVPA case telling jurors that multidisciplinary team of professionals, a team of prosecutors, and the judge have all previously determined that sexually violent predator commitment proceedings should proceed against appellant was extremely prejudicial.
|
|||||
| In re Gilman, No. 95,133,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disciplined by published censure for violation of Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) where he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice when he appeared in municipal court after having consumed alcohol; because he appeared to be impaired, judge had to continue a trial and call a recess to address his condition.
|
|||||
| In re Moore, No. 95,134,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from practicing law due to her violations of Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3; 1.4(a); 5.5; and 8.1(b), after consideration of aggravating factors such as a pattern of misconduct, a failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and her substantial experience, as well as the mitigating factors such as alcohol abuse.
|
|||||
| In re Myers, No. 95,132,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was censured as he violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 1.1, 1.5 when he created trust documents for his clients that failed to accomplish the goals of the estate plan, charged the estate a fee for performing work that was not required, and billed in one-hour increments when one-hour of work was not performed.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. 92,184,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court erred in overturning award of summary judgment in favor of county board of commissioners in employee's retaliation action because employee's notice on county counselor did not substantially comply with provisions of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-105b(d). The employee was required to serve notice of his claim on the county clerk or the board.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, No. 92,910,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3401 was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not impermissibly shift the burden to defendant simply because it omitted the word "malice" from the statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Green, No. 90,912,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter as an aider and abetter, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3205, where victim's death during a bar fight was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of an inherently dangerous felony-aggravated battery; thus, court of appeals erred by reversing defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
| State v. McGee, No. 92,510,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first-degree premeditated murder case, defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated as 147 days of the 236-day delay was attributable to defendant when he filed a notice to use mental disease or defect as a defense and requested a mental examination; thus, the 90-day requirement of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3402(1) was not violated.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
