 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Dodge City v. Ibarra, No. 94,161,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where lack of jurisdiction was due only to defendant's counsel's failure to perfect and complete the appeal as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3609(2), fundamental fairness required defendant's appeal of his municipal court conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol to proceed.
|
|||||
| Kempke v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 94,013,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: licensee's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not violated when he was not permitted to subpoena relevant witnesses during an administrative hearing relating to a license suspension under the Kansas implied consent law, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1001, because a full due process hearing was permitted upon a de novo review in a district court.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. 94,707,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based upon the plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 19-304, the preparation of payroll was not a statutorily mandated duty of the county clerk. Thus, a resolution adopted by a board of county commissioners assigning the preparation of county employees' payroll to a newly created human resources department was not contrary to state law.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Topeka Police Dep't v. $ 895.00 United States Currency, No. 94,719,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State began civil forfeiture proceedings against seized currency under the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act, the State Board of Indigents' Defense Services lacked standing to make a claim under a forfeiture exemption for attorney fees because it was not an owner of or an interest holder in the funds.
|
|||||
| State v. Curls, No. 94,629 n1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for violation of a protective order was affirmed because even though police officers had not listened to the messages on the victim's phone in order to corroborate her testimony that defendant had called several times, the district court chose to believe the victim's story, precluding any challenge to the evidence on appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Nguyen, No. 91,350,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions, including first-degree felony murder and aggravated kidnapping, were affirmed; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his own statements to police where the interpreter was qualified based on his experience and he was able to properly convey defendant's legal rights to defendant.
|
|||||
| Welch v. Via Christi Health Ptnrs., No. 92,867,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 5, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limited partners were not entitled to buyout rights under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56a-701 when their interests were bought out during a merger between a limited partnership and a limited liability company because they were not expelled under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56a-601; moreover, there were no dissociation rights under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 56a-906(e) either.
|
|||||
| In re Flack, No. 86,855,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
