 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Caring Hearts Pers. Home Servs. v. Hobley, No. 94,126,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A noncompete agreement was valid and enforceable because an employer had the authority to provide home health services, even if illegal kickbacks under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b were given, employees were not free to ignore their obligations under the contract, and the services they provided were properly supervised under 42 C.F.R. § 484.30.
|
|||||
| Coleman v. Swift-Eckrich, No. 94,324,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers' compensation benefits was reversed and remanded because the Kansas Supreme Court reevaluated the wisdom of the horseplay rule and ruled that a nonparticipating victim of horseplay could recover workers' compensation.
|
|||||
| Foster v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, Nos. 92,250, 92,344,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reviewing drivers' license suspensions, trial court erred in ruling that Kansas Department of Revenue had not "forthwith set" hearings. Trial court did not apply a proper definition of "forthwith," pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1020(d), because trial court only considered lapse of time, thereby defeating the statute's legislative purpose.
|
|||||
| Klein v. Oppenheimer & Co., No. 91,778,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While aiding and abetting theory of Ridenhour did not extend to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1268(a) to impose secondary liability to persons expressly listed in § 17-1268(b) on defendant clearing broker, strict liability of provision applied to defendant who materially aided in sale because defendant's services required exercise of professional expertise.
|
|||||
| State v. Corbett, No. 91,518,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by admitting the transcripts of two eyewitness's depositions pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(a) because they were relevant, as they provided detailed descriptions of the man that they saw outside the victim's apartment the night she was murdered, and contradicted one eyewitness' trial testimony.
|
|||||
| State v. Porting, No. 91,631, 91,667,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 24, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motions to suppress were reversed and remanded because the State failed to satisfy its burden of establishing a valid third-party consent to search the house where defendants were staying.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
