 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dillon Real Estate Co. v. City of Topeka, No. 95,1621,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner, improvement district, and township were granted summary judgment in an action contesting annexation because the City of Topeka failed to proceed via county approval annexation under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-521 and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-520(c) did not violate Kan. Const. art. 12, § 5(a) but barred City's unilateral annexation of part of district.
|
|||||
| Estate of Ethel F. Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 96,060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by imposing limits on a decedent's rights to dispose of her assets during her lifetime, because the antenuptial agreement the decedent executed with her deceased spouse was unambiguous and there was nothing in the language of the antenuptial agreement which restricted the decedent from creating irrevocable trusts.
|
|||||
| In re J.M.E., No. 97,780,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression order was reversed and remanded because officers were engaged in a valid community caretaking function when responding to a complaint about a car, there was probable cause to search after the first officer smelled the odor of marijuana coming from the car, and a reasonable search and seizure of apparent contraband followed.
|
|||||
| Kargus v. State, No. 92,432,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded because, while appellant had statutory right to effective assistance of counsel when filing petition for review in his direct appeal, record was insufficient for supreme court to determine whether appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance by not filing petition for review after appellant allegedly requested that he do so.
|
|||||
| State v. Hampton, No. 96,110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution of defendant for, inter alia, rape, trial court properly admitted prosecution witness's testimony under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-455. Whether defendant restrained victim with intent to inflict personal injuries upon her in the form of rape was a disputed issue of material fact, and testimony was relevant to prove defendant's intent.
|
|||||
| State v. Kelley, No. 96,181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a felony obstruction conviction under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3808 was predicated upon a traffic infraction and not a felony, it was reversed. Motion to suppress was properly denied because use of a narcotics dog to sniff a vehicle during a license and computer check did not delay the stop nor constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
|
|||||
| State v. Kraft, No. 96,136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside defendant's plea to aggravated escape from custody under Kan. Stat. § 21-3810, because although defendant was no longer residing at the residential center, he was in the custody of the center until he was released from the program under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3809(b).
|
|||||
| State v. Laturner, No. 96,086,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because of testimonial nature of lab report and trial court's discretion under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3437(3) to admit it into evidence over defendant's objection and without testimony of technician who prepared it, that portion of statute violated Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause when applied to defendant in criminal case.
|
|||||
| State v. McCarley, No. 95,818,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an aggravated reckless battery, the trial court properly denied the State's motion to correct illegal sentence as the sentence was legal, and the agreement between the State and defendant that resulted in a sentence for a severity level 8 crime barred any appellate review under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4721(c)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
