 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Haley v. Brown, No. 93,559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 26, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice suit's settlement, trial court erroneously held that interest was owing on two years' payments under agreement because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3403(d) was not intended to create an independent statutory right to receive interest from the Health Care Stabilization Fund when there was no contract provision for payment of interest.
|
|||||
| Raney-Neises v. HCA Health Serv. of Kan., Inc., No. 93,740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 26, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In child birth medical malpractice suit, appellate court only had jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the journal entry of judgment that was specified in parents' notice of appeal, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-2103(b) and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 2.02; it had no jurisdiction over decision striking of parents' expert or dismissal of their punitive damages claim.
|
|||||
| State v. Kotas, No. 94,249,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, May 26, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deputy's traffic stop was reasonable when he was stationed near DUI checkpoint at end of bridge and defendant did a U-turn in middle of bridge across double solid yellow lines because by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1546(a), by its express language was subject to judgment regarding what constituted a safe U-turn.
|
|||||
| Estate of Pemberton v. John's Sports Ctr., Inc., No. 94,583,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly upheld, where there were no genuine issues of material fact that center's employees had actual or constructive knowledge of decedent's mental problems, or had actual or constructive knowledge that he was not capable of handling or using shotgun appropriately.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Hjersted, No. 93,470,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a life tenant and a remainderman unite in a nonjudicial sale of property, without agreeing as to a division of disposal of the proceeds, the life tenant is entitled to receive from such proceeds the estimated value of his or her life estate computed as of the time of the sale.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Hjersted, No. 94,711,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in refusing to deduct outstanding gift tax assessment from probate estate for purpose of calculating surviving spouse's unsatisfied elective share where there was no indication that such a debt should be considered anything other than an enforceable demand, which was deductible from probate estate pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-6a204.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Osborn, No. 95,015,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant child's postjudgment motion to modify parenting time in her parents' divorce case was properly dismissed because a minor child had no legal standing to file a motion to modify visitation or parenting time in a divorce case.
|
|||||
| In re Norman B. Hjersted Revocable Trust, No. 94,072,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's decision to admit extrinsic evidence in the construction of a trust was not erroneous because an exclusion clause was ambiguous in nature; the evidence showed that a reference to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-403 was a scrivener's error and the intended reference was to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-6a201 et seq.
|
|||||
| Lane v. Atchison Heritage Conf. Ctr., Inc., No. 94,634,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 2, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to a corporation under the recreational use exception of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6104(o) because, although the corporation was an instrumentality of a city and a conference center was public property, it was not intended for recreational use where the primary purpose of the center was business.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
