 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alliance Steel, Inc. v. Piland, No. 94,245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in dismissing an Oklahoma supplier's mechanic's lien foreclosure suit. As the supplier was not "doing business" in Kansas within the meaning of Kans. Stat. Ann. § 17-7303, it was not required to register as a foreign corporation, and was not prohibited by Kans. Stat. Ann. § 17-7307(a) from filing suit there.
|
|||||
| City of Dodge City v. Reyes, No. 94,806,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city's appeal was denied because the district court properly found that it had jurisdiction over an appeal of municipal court convictions where the district court found that despite an individual's missing signature, an appearance bond was valid under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-4301, 22-3609 since a surety's representative signed and filed the bond.
|
|||||
| City of Manhattan v. Feril, No. 94,525,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol was affirmed where an officer received radio contact that a truck with a description matching defendant's truck was driving without headlights and where upon approaching defendant, defendant admitted he had been drinking and failed several sobriety tests.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. Bruce, No. 95,032,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of inmate's Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1501 petition, in which he alleged violations of his constitutional rights in a prison disciplinary hearing, was upheld because, among other things, the hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in denying the inmate's witness request where the testimony from the proposed witness was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. Bruce, No. 95,032,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although prisoner, who filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1501 petition, argued that he was denied due process when prison authorities refused his request to call a certain witness, prisoner's due process argument failed because the testimony from the proposed witness was unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Seward County v. Navarro, No. 94,598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As training race horses was not an "agricultural purpose" within the meaning of Kansas zoning statutes and regulations, court erred in denying county's petition under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-761(c) (2005) to permanently enjoin property owners from operating race track, on basis that this was agricultural use under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-758, 19-2908.
|
|||||
| State v. Blanchette, No. 93,962,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allowing the child victim to testify by closed-circuit television at defendant's trial for rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child was proper because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3434 had been held constitutional under Crawford, and necessity was shown at pre-trial hearing as there was testimony that child would be traumatized.
|
|||||
| Swenson v. State, No. 94,207,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 19, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion for relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 was affirmed except for one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A hearing pursuant to Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 183(h) was needed for the claim of ineffective assistance when there was evidence that trial counsel did not properly investigate potentially exculpatory evidence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
