 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Antrim, Piper, Wenger, Inc. v. Lowe, No. 97,308,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where husband signed a nonexclusive right to sell agreement with real estate broker, broker was entitled to a commission on the sale of ranch owned by husband and wife because, inter alia, broker was the procuring cause of the deal with the buyer since the buyer had been sent to husband and wife through the agent's efforts and the broker's website.
|
|||||
| In re Comfort, No. 97,287,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney sent a letter to opposing counsel regarding a potential conflict of interest and then published that letter to governmental officials, he was given a public censure for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 4.4 and Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d). The rules were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
|
|||||
| In re Daniels, No. 98,057,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for one year for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(b), 1.16(d), 3.2, 7.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b) and 211(b) for, inter alia, not filing a wrongful death suit until 15 months after the 2-year statute of limitations had expired and for engaging in deceptive practices during panel hearing.
|
|||||
| In re Pattison, No. 98,102,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where respondent attorney, inter alia, failed to provide diligent representation to two clients, failed to keep those clients informed regarding their cases, and violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) by converting the fees of two clients and using them for his own purposes, indefinite suspension was the appropriate discipline.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of J.D.C., No. 95,610,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because due process under U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV, and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 18, was satisfied, and a 14-year-old girl's hearsay statements were admissible without limitation under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(a), the testimony of others at child in need of care (CINC) hearing was sufficient to support the determination that the girl was a CINC.
|
|||||
| Redmond v. Kester, No. 97,627,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court answered yes to a certified question from the federal bankruptcy court and concluded that Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors could claim the homestead exemption under Kan. Stat. § 60-2301 even though their house was transferred to a self-settled, living, revocable trust prior to the bankruptcy and they were the settlors and beneficiaries.
|
|||||
| State v. Adams, No. 94,857,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In felony murder case, trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3210 because (1) his attorney discussed possible sentences with him; (2) he understood the charges and possible sentences; and (3) he assured trial court that he was entering a plea on his own volition.
|
|||||
| State v. Bryant, No. 96,274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution order was affirmed because the procedure set forth in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3424(d) was directory rather than mandatory and defendant had been placed on notice at sentencing that he would be required to pay restitution; thus, the district court retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of defendant's restitution after sentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Burton, No. 95,970,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence because police were not justified in making a pat-down search of defendant, and there were no intervening circumstances which served to purge the taint of the illegal search. Therefore, the resulting statements and consent to search were not voluntarily given.
|
|||||
| State v. Carter, No. 95,335,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not violate defendant's right to present a defense by failing to grant a continuance under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3401 to locate a witness because, to the extent that the witness's evidence would have been helpful to the defense, other witnesses were present to testify that they were aware someone was planning to rob defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
