 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lee Builders, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90,944,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over insurance coverage, award of attorney fees was upheld, where judgment for indemnity against insurer was based on insurance policy that insured certain property against loss by fire, lightning, windstorm, and hail.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, No. 92,580,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers were justified in detaining defendant after conclusion of traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion of drug activity, but no drugs were found in car. Officers had no right to place him under arrest. Thus, under Fourth Amendment and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 15, drug evidence seized as a result of attempted unlawful arrest was suppressed.
|
|||||
| State v. Baker, No. 92,870,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, the court erred by imposing a hard 50 sentence, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4636, because, although defendant shot the victim who was a paraplegic, standing alone, the fact that the victim was killed by gunshots was not sufficient to support a finding that the manner of death was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
|
|||||
| State v. Burton, No. 94,432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed no error in instructing the jury on aggravated robbery, because the modified instruction on aggravated robbery, when given in conjunction with the aiding and abetting instruction, clarified to the jury that defendant was being charged as an aider and abettor rather than as a principal actor in the crime.
|
|||||
| State v. Cook, No. 92,731,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A witness's trouble sequencing events or failing to recount the past 10 years were not compelling reasons to require psychological testing prior to testifying and requiring his examination 10 years after the crime had less bearing on the case than the 10-year old report which was subjected to cross-examination; defendant's conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Fanning, No. 94,621,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Downward durational departure of 48 months for one count of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine was affirmed because the offense of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine was not identical to the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine for sentencing purposes.
|
|||||
| State v. Goodson, No. 92,662,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was substantial evidence that defendant's statements to detective were voluntarily and knowingly given as he did not appear to be under influence of alcohol or drugs and there was no indication that defendant asked to sleep or was not allowed to sleep. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his confession.
|
|||||
| State v. Groshong, No. 93,419,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 15 were not violated by a search of her purse inside of a vehicle because she failed to immediately assert a privacy interest therein by taking it upon exiting the vehicle after a traffic stop.
|
|||||
| State v. Gumfory, No. 94,575,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4729(f)(1)(A), (B) did not set forth the exclusive grounds for revoking probation, a district court was able to revoke probation when defendant violated the law by being convicted of three misdemeanors and by his discharge from a drug treatment program.
|
|||||
| State v. Harned, No. 93,168,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea because he had the opportunity to discuss the amended information with his counsel before entering his plea, he understood the nature of the charge when he entered his plea, and he acknowledged to the court that he understood what was happening and why the amendment was necessary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
