 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Botkin v. Sec. State Bank, No. 92,380,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the amount of liability was expressed in alternatives, guaranty documents were clear that the guarantors intended to provide, and the bank intended to accept, a certain guaranty of the bank's borrower's indebtedness; therefore, the agreements were enforceable under the statute of frauds, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 33-106.
|
|||||
| Fieser v. State Bd. of Healing Arts, No. 94,203,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision reversing an order of a health care licensing board revoking a doctor's license was reversed because the board correctly interpreted Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-2837(a)(2) to not require proof of patient injury before revocation because there was evidence that the doctor deviated from the applicable standard of care.
|
|||||
| Pankratz Implement Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank, No. 91,721,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a search under a debtor's correct name using the filing office's standard search logic did not disclose the creditor's financing statement with the debtor's misspelled name, the financing statement was seriously misleading under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 84-9-506.
|
|||||
| State v. Beauclair, No. 91,999,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion alleging that his pleas were involuntary was appropriate pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3210(a)(2) because defendant was made aware on multiple occasions before his motion to withdraw that he had been under-informed at his plea hearing. Yet he proceeded.
|
|||||
| State v. Bischoff, No. 91,179,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly allowed the State to amend defendant's complaint, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3201, where it was amended 10 months prior to trial, the motion to dismiss was argued 8 months prior to trial, defendant was aware of all of the evidence prior to trial, and his defense was that he did not intentionally commit any of the acts alleged.
|
|||||
| State v. Bryan, No. 90,881,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3508(a)(2) where the victim's mother, defendant's wife, testified that she saw defendant lying next to the victim with his hand on his erect penis, and he immediately tried to cover himself when she entered the room.
|
|||||
| State v. Carter, No. 92,988,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for aggravated burglary and criminal damage to property were affirmed because there was no doubt that the victim's porch was part of "any building" under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3716, when photos in the record revealed that the porch was an integral part of the house itself, sharing a common foundation, roof, gutter system, and siding.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 90,982,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's rape case, a court erred by failing to suspend the proceedings under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3302 because defendant's competency was in dispute, the State did not oppose the order directing a competency determination, and defense counsel had a good faith basis for suspecting defendant's incompetency.
|
|||||
| State v. Gayden, No. 94,651,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied relief on the motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504(1) because defendant's claim that his sentence violated a constitutional provision, U.S. Const. amend. V, was not the required claim that his sentence did not conform to relevant statutory provisions.
|
|||||
| State v. Hayden, No. 88,650,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 17, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were improper under Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 601A because his trial was presided over by a judge who was intrusive, rude, and sarcastic. The misconduct did not consist of an isolated comment or action; it was pervasive and defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
