 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Whitson, No. 95,193,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a sex offender was disabled and a facility qualified as a group home, a county was free to impose restrictions or totally exclude the group home if it housed disabled persons with additional characteristics under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-736(c); therefore, permanent injunctive relief was granted to a county in a permit dispute.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Jefferson County Comm'rs v. Adcox, No. 94,894,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in denying property owners' motion to set aside default judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-260(b)(4) that was entered against them in county's tax foreclosure suit where county did not conduct proper search prior to resorting to service by publication; county could have discovered owners' address through reasonable investigation.
|
|||||
| City of Roeland Park v. Jasan Trust (In re Acquisition of Prop. by Eminent Domain), No. 94,897,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Apportionment of lessee's condemnation award between the lessee and the sublessee was affirmed because the parties were free to contract around eminent domain rules, and under the lease agreement, the sublessee was entitled to seek a share of the lessee's condemnation award for compensation of lost profits.
|
|||||
| Dickerson v. Schroeder, No. 94,620,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3403(l), an increase in a doctor's excess liability insurance coverage under the Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund from $ 100,000 per claim to $ 800,000 per claim was only applicable to acts or omissions that occurred when the doctor's application for increased liability limits became effective.
|
|||||
| Grajeda v. Aramark Corp., No. 94,051,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of lump sum settlement in worker's compensation matter, Workers Compensation Board had authority to review award because under Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-551(b)(1) the Board had the authority after an award by the ALJ. In addition, the Board had the authority to remand the award for additional evidence.
|
|||||
| Hawley v. Kan. Dep't of Agric., No. 93,690,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there were no acts indicative of ownership of water right issued in 1953, because nonuse had occurred for more than 30 consecutive years with no cause, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 82a-718(b)'s notice after 3 years of nonuse advising of trustees' opportunity to avoid termination through use during a 5-year period did not apply.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of B.G.J., No. 91,997,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where mother relinquished custody of her child who was one-fourth Native American to non-Indian parents, and mother was adamant that child be placed with adoptive parents with full knowledge of ICWA preferences, under substantial abuse of discretion standard, trial court's findings of good cause were not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| In re Eastepp, No. 95,688,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas for a period of 2 years, because the attorney violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, and during the past 10 years the attorney had made no attempt to comply with the requirements of the Kansas Supreme Court Rules.
|
|||||
| In re Lucas, No. 95,452,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney had been convicted of theft and forgery, disbarment was an appropriate sanction for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), (c) since the attorney had been previously suspended for misconduct, and he failed to appear at the hearing upon his release from prison, despite receiving adequate notice.
|
|||||
| In re Prof'l Eng'g Consultants, P.A., No. 94,021,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no statute gave the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) the power to grant a credit against the corporate income tax which the Kansas Department of Revenue did not allow or disallow, BOTA did not have jurisdiction to grant such a credit to a company under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-32,160a.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
