 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Conner v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co., No. 92,286,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In insured's action to recover for damages to a farm trailer, court of appeals erred in holding that jury had to make bad faith determination and in applying abuse of discretion standard to review that issue, but it correctly determined that insurers did not controvert insured's affidavits on the issue of whether the trailer was covered.
|
|||||
| Cousatte v. Lucas, No. 94,150,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although will was invalid because of undue influence by a beneficiary, an estate administrator was not entitled to a constructive trust on beneficiary's home, purchased with proceeds of estate assets, where he failed to identify or prove the fraud required under Kansas law for imposition of such a trust. Undue influence, alone, was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Drach v. Bruce, No. 93,654,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In marital homicide case, denial of appellant's motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel was upheld, where factual underpinnings of trial court's decision were supported by substantial competent evidence.
|
|||||
| Flynn v. State, No. 94,568,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied appellant's Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 motion. Although appellant claimed her attorney was ineligible under Kan. Admin. Regs. 105-3-2 and unqualified because of his inexperience in trying severity level 1 felony cases, there was no per se ineffectiveness based on attorney's failure to qualify under the regulation.
|
|||||
| In re Christian, No. 95,413,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 1.5(d), Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 1.15(b), Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 4.1(a), and Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 8.4(c) by converting a law firm's funds and making false statements; mental health was not a mitigating factor since it was not the cause of the behavior.
|
|||||
| In re Holmberg, No. 95,962,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's representation of clients while his license was under administrative suspension constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a). Attorney was placed on supervised probation because he had developed a plan of probation, and it appeared that his misconduct could be corrected by probation.
|
|||||
| In re Sachse, No. 95,240,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney failed to complete a matter for a client, failed to return phone calls, failed to pay an interpreter's fees, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings, he was suspended for one year for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.4(g), and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207(b).
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Brooks Plumbing, LLC, No. 95,668,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of actual receipt of notice by the claimant's counsel tolled the statutory 10-day limit to appeal the workers' compensation decision because it was undisputed that the claimant's counsel received no actual notice of the date of the administrative law judge's decision until the 10-day appeal time had effectively expired.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., No. 92,700,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of attorney fees assessed against insurer under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-256 in underlying garnishment action based in part upon personal injury claimants' contingent fee agreement with counsel was proper because law required consideration of all relevant factors, not merely time spent. However § 40-256 did not provide for expert witness fees.
|
|||||
| Kau Kau Take Home No. 1 v. City of Wichita, No. 94,869,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restaurant owners failed to demonstrate a compensable taking because the city's regulation of traffic flow near the owners' property was a reasonable exercise of the city's police power, and the city's construction project did not control the use of the owners' property or restrict the owners' right to dispose of the property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
