 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chamberlain v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., No. 94,558,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of individual and class action claims for PIP benefits against the insurer was affirmed because when the insured settled with the driver, she lost her right to pursue her PIP claims, lost standing as the representative for the class action claims, and the settlement defeated the doctor's claim against the insurer.
|
|||||
| Crandall v. Grbic, No. 94,846,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The realtor's duty was properly executed because he advised the purchasers to get professional home inspections, and they did so. Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-30,107(b), that absolved the realtor of any liability as to the matters covered in the inspection, namely the patio roof.
|
|||||
| In re Garden City Med. Clinic, P.A., No. 93,091,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of an amendment to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-213(k) limiting the time for refunds based on erroneous tax payments violated a taxpayer's due process rights because there was a vested right to the refund prior to the change in the law; however, there was no equal protection violation since a rational basis was shown.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Bradley, No. 95,727,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's motion for a stay of proceedings under 50 U.S.C.S. app. § 522(b)(2) was denied because he did not provide a deployment order with his name on it or a statement from his commanding officer. Since this was not provided, a trial court had discretion on whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings.
|
|||||
| In re Tax Appeal of Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of Comm'rs, No. 94,927,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed a district court ruling reversing a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) in favor of a county because, in part, BOTA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the fact that the county's appraisal fit within the definition of a written appraisal specified in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-504(b) (2005 Supp.).
|
|||||
| Jerby v. Truck Ins. Exch., No. 94,863,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was reversed and remanded because there were two possible scenarios that could apply to the issue concerning any setoff against future workers' compensation benefits, and the record did not disclose the facts that determined which scenario applied.
|
|||||
| Moss v. Mamalis, No. 94,379,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court improvidently granted the attorney's motion for summary judgment on the basis of a statute of limitations bar, because a cause of action for legal malpractice did not accrue until the claimant was injured by being erroneously assigned to serve a postrelease supervision term.
|
|||||
| Rash v. Heartland Cement Co., No. 94,604 n11 REPORTER'S NOTE: Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish pursuant to Rule 7.04 (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 50). The published version was filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on February 15, 2007.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because only evidence regarding claimant's post-injury wages and earning capacity came from vocational expert, substantial evidence supported conclusion, based on the expert's testimony, that claimant had 74% wage loss and 56% task loss resulting in 65% disability rating; as such, 90% wage level penalty in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-510e did not apply.
|
|||||
| State v. Chaffee, No. 94,218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated kidnapping conviction was reversed and remanded because the appellate court was forced to speculate whether the jury considered crimes beyond those set forth in the charging document, and whether the jury understood, without instructions, what the State was required to prove for any uncharged crime.
|
|||||
| State v. Oswald, No. 94,242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 14, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for identity theft in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4018 was appropriate because sufficient evidence proved that defendant obtained the victim's identifying information with the intent to defraud for economic benefit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
