 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In the Interest of J.D.C., No. 95,610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a child in need of care case was civil proceeding, under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1554, evidentiary safeguards guaranteed in criminal case did not apply. Thus, there was no violation of mother's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when trial court admitted hearsay statements as that evidence was admissible under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(a).
|
|||||
| Sall v. T'S, Inc., No. 93,013,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by granting summary judgment to a golf course on a negligence claim because it assumed a duty to warn plaintiff of impending inclement whether, and there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the golf course was negligent in failing to sound the lightening warning horn in a timely fashion.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Kline v. Berry, No. 94,710,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directed verdict on claims under Kansas Consumer Protection Act was proper only as to findings that seller committed unconscionable act when he misrepresented a horse's traits; directed verdicts on findings that seller committed deceptive acts with respect to other sales were improper because such findings were for a jury, not a court, to decide.
|
|||||
| State v. 1997 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, No. 94,025,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 23, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In civil forfeiture proceeding, trial court did not err in finding car was not used in a manner giving rise to forfeiture because State failed to meet burden of proof to show that car was used or intended for use in any manner to facilitate the sale of marijuana, as required for a forfeiture pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-4105(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Alderson v. State, No. 94,408,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was not ineffective under the Sixth Amendment for failing to call witnesses to support defendant's self-defense theory where defendant unilaterally decided to present the defense while testifying at the close of trial, and defendant had never provided counsel with any information that he had committed shootings in self-defense.
|
|||||
| Jeremiah 29:11, Inc. v. Seifert, No. 94,224,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, June 30, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of 1978 grantees' signature did not void restrictive covenants because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2203 did not require that a warranty deed be signed by the grantees; the deed complied with statute of frauds, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 33-106; and later grantees were charged with constructive notice under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2222 after deed was recorded.
|
|||||
| City of Arkansas City v. Bruton, No. 94,893,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in construing 1935 instrument of conveyance as it was not ambiguous in providing that easement was construction and maintenance of dike in accordance with approved plans and specifications and for flood protection; whether city improvements of 2000 were within scope of easement had to be addressed by court after trial.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of E.T., No. 95,509,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once mother presented evidence to rebut the Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-414(b) presumption that she was unfit parent, State's evidence was insufficient to support finding of unfitness and to terminate parental rights. However, mother's abusive conduct towards older sibling provided evidence to support determination that child was a child in need of care.
|
|||||
| Kan. Indus. Consumers Group, Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n , No. 96,228,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 7, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order permitting electric utility to include a retail energy cost adjustment (ECA) in its rates did not exceed Corporation Commission's authority under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 66-101 and 66-101g, and was consistent with a prior merger order, which stated it could be modified and did not require elimination of ECA clauses as a condition of the merger.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
