 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. Heath, No. 94,362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the children's grandmother was entitled to grandparent visits was proper pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-129 where the grandmother had a nurturing and positive relationship with the children. Thus, evidence existed to support the finding that it would be in the children's best interests to see the grandmother.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. City of Ark. City, No. 90,878,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In landowners' negligence suit against the city and the department of transportation, summary dismissal was proper as the city and the department were immune from liability under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6104 where the landowners failed to establish that delay in the completion of a levee was the proximate cause of their flood damage.
|
|||||
| Erixson v. Ojeleye, No. 93,901,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied patient a new trial after judgment was awarded to a physician in a medical malpractice suit because even if jurors with healthcare training drew upon their backgrounds in deciding the case, it did not necessarily establish misconduct; affidavits by patient's attorney and his assistant were only evidence of alleged misconduct.
|
|||||
| Hauschulz v. Gobble, No. 94,402,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In inmate's tort claim against prison guard, small claims court did not have jurisdiction under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 61-2701 et seq. to entertain claims under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA), Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6101 et seq. KTCA applied because guard was conducting duties as state employee during search that led to confiscation of photos.
|
|||||
| Housh v. Hay, No. 94,425,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence suit, after original petition's service was delayed, amended petition's filing date related back to original petition's filing date, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-215(c)(1), because both petitions arose from same occurrence, and process was served within 90 days of original petition's filing, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-203(a).
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Riggs, No. 93,734,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In stepparent-visitation dispute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(b) was constitutional when requirements of case law and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-129(a) were engrafted onto it. District court did not err in ordering stepfather's visitation because there was no reasonable basis to distinguish standards to review stepparent's claim and a grandparent's claim.
|
|||||
| Logsdon v. Boeing Co., No. 94,206,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the former employer's challenge to the workers' compensation board's award of post-award medical benefits, because the employee's prior injury had never fully healed, his aggravation of that same injury by a subsequent non-work-related accident was the natural consequence of his original injury and his post-award injury was compensable.
|
|||||
| State v. $6,618.00 United States Currency, No. 93,650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, February 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant lacked standing in a subsequent forfeiture proceeding where he failed to comply with Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-4111(b) by not providing title to seized vehicle or explanation as to his acquisition of or interest in $ 4,453 that was seized when his vehicle was stopped along with a truck in which 198 pounds of pseudoephedrine tablets were found.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
