 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc., No. 94,334,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously stated that claims resulting from the termination of employment were subject to arbitration, tort claims that arose from the actions of the employer after an employee was terminated for shoplifting were not covered.
|
|||||
| Brennan v. Kunzle, No. 94,273,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where purchasers presented expert evidence that the defects in a home that they bought from sellers were not discoverable through a reasonable inspection, the reasonableness of the purchasers' inspections was a question of fact. Thus, summary judgment on the purchasers' fraud by silence claim was reversed.
|
|||||
| Ellibee v. Aramark Corr. Servs., Inc., No. 96,809,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a prison inmate's consumer protection claims against the prison's vendor alleging it failed to provide kosher meals was proper as Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-623 was limited to individuals who directly contracted with suppliers for goods or services, and it was the prison, not the inmate, that contracted with the vendor.
|
|||||
| Flores Rentals, Inc. v. Flores, No. 95,535,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a motion for disqualification of a law firm was granted per Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9(a), an appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine because, as the motion was granted because an attorney from the firm could be called as a witness, the merits were inextricably intertwined with the merits of the case.
|
|||||
| In re Gackle, No. 97,528,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there had been a final adjudication in Missouri that an attorney had committed the crime of possessing child pornography, this conclusively established misconduct in Kansas under Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 202; an indefinite suspension was entered based on the violation of Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), (b).
|
|||||
| In re Waite, No. 97,520,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attorney disciplinary matter, panel's findings were admitted because they were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Attorney violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 and Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15 as well as Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) because he withdrew client's funds in excess of fee agreement to which attorney was entitled.
|
|||||
| Lane v. Atchison Heritage Conf. Ctr., No. 94,634,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a music provider fell on a loading dock at a city conference center after a New Years' Eve dance, summary judgment finding immunity pursuant to the recreational use exception to the Kansas Tort Claims Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6104(o), was improperly reversed as it applied when property use was intended or permitted for recreational purposes.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 95,931,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly affirmed the suspension of a driver's commercial driver's license under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 8-2,145(a), 8-1001 when he was caught driving a noncommercial vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, as the driver received all of the notice to which he was statutorily entitled and he was not denied due process.
|
|||||
| State v. Adams, No. 93,640,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to a speedy trial under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3402 was violated when he was not brought to trial on drug charges within 180 days of arraignment; defendant did not waive his rights by accepting a trial date, defense counsel was not required to object to the trial setting, and prejudice was not a proper factor for consideration.
|
|||||
| State v. Albright, No. 94,244,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because imposition of the Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4638 hard 40 sentence based on a fact not found by the jury did not increase defendant's maximum sentence of imprisonment for life (the hard 40 sentence limited the lower end of the sentence), the sentence did not violate the U.S. Constitution or Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 5.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
