 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Schow, No. 96,820,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 15, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to criminal threat when he objected to the criminal history classification contained in his presentence investigation (PSI) report was not error as the trial court was permitted to take judicial notice of defendant's PSI report filed in a previous case pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4714.
|
|||||
| Abasolo v. State, No. 93,788,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to correct a journal entry under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 should have been granted in a case where a lower sentence was pronounced in a probation revocation proceeding because the district court had the authority to do so under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3716(b), and the oral pronouncement governed over the journal entry.
|
|||||
| City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, No. 97,151,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a condemnation proceeding, the city's expert's testimony was proper because he utilized a methodology recognized by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 26-513; he opined that the difference in fair market value of the property before the taking and fair market value after the taking was best measured by the rental value during the use of the temporary easement.
|
|||||
| State v. Gaudina, No. 95,854,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to credit under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4614 towards post-release supervision where he served 32 months in prison beyond his new 77-month sentence, because post-release supervision was a separate segment of the sentence and any credit for time spent in confinement was credited against time spent incarcerated.
|
|||||
| State v. Henderson, No. 92,251,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a child sexual abuse case, defendant's confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated by the admission of the child's taped interview because it was conducted by a social worker and a detective, it was taken in a formal setting with question and answer format, and there was no emergency; the child was speaking of past events.
|
|||||
| State v. Mitchell, No. 96,807,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of several offenses and sentenced to a maximum of two life sentences, plus 60 years. Defendant's motion, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504, to correct an illegal sentence was properly dismissed because district court lacked jurisdiction over constitutional challenge, and defendant's statutory challenge lacked support.
|
|||||
| State v. Voyles, No. 92,030,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's failure to provide a unanimity instruction led to reversal of defendant's convictions under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-3511, 21-3506(a)(1) was reversible error because it was a multiple acts case, as his conduct against victims involved different times and different locations, demonstrating acts that were separate and distinct.
|
|||||
| State v. White, No. 95,621,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a first-degree murder case, a court did not err in failing to give an instruction on imperfect defense-of-others voluntary manslaughter under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3211 because defendant shot the victim at work and it was difficult for defendant to present evidence that he honestly believed his grandson was there and that abuse was imminent.
|
|||||
| Steffes v. City of Lawrence, No. 96,838,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bar owner's challenge of a city ordinance regulating smoking in public places was rejected because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4010 did not preempt the ordinance, the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, and the bar owner was not entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief since his arguments were properly rejected on the merits.
|
|||||
| Young Partners, LLC v. Bd. of Educ., No. 97,087,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 22, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School district was improperly enjoined from acquiring a reversionary interest under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-8212a(b) because there was no Contract Clause violation since the power of eminent domain existed prior to the execution of a sales contract; moreover, there was no takings clause violation since the "public purpose" requirement was satisfied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
