 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Midwest Crane & Rigging, Inc. v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n, No. 97,214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the issue of whether appellant crane company was a motor carrier (and thus, subject to oversight by appellee Kansas Corporation Commission) required the interpretation of statutes administered by the commission, exhaustion of administrative remedies was required before the company filed a declaratory judgment action.
|
|||||
| N. Country Villas Homeowners Ass'n v. Kokenge, No. 97,018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a developer could assign its rights under a subdivision declaration, the attempt by the lot owners to either revoke or amend the declaration as to their property was unenforceable where it the general amendment provision did not sufficiently notify purchasers that an amendment materially changing the subdivision's character could occur.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 95,523,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, August 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed because defendant was not prejudiced by a judge's ex parte conversation with a juror, who was excused, and any errors were harmless; reading of preliminary hearing testimony by a prosecutor into the record did not violate defendant's due process rights; evidence was sufficient to establish agreement element of conspiracy.
|
|||||
| State v. McCall, No. 93,259,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's identity theft sentence was affirmed because the trial court did not err by failing to consider defendant's ability to pay when ordering restitution, as the plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4603d(b)(1) (2006) did not require such a finding.
|
|||||
| State v. Meza, No. 96,502,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 3, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who used false identification to obtain work was properly found guilty of identity theft under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4018(a) because the State proved intent to defraud for economic benefit; the prosecution was not time-barred under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3106(8) because identity theft was a continuing offense.
|
|||||
| Cimarex Energy Co. v. Seward County Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. 96,657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State Board of Tax Appeals' (BOTA) order compelling a company to disclose its in-house reserves information was reversed; because BOTA never found "just cause" to allow the county to deviate from the Oil and Gas Appraisal Guide to use the information to establish fair market value, the ruling was contrary to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-1456.
|
|||||
| McPherson v. State, No. 96,314,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could plead guilty to the nonexistent crime of attempted second-degree unintentional murder under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3402 because he was originally charged with two valid crimes and he pleaded no contest in order to receive the benefit of a favorable plea bargain, which cut his sentence by nearly two-thirds.
|
|||||
| Russell v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 96,416,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying insurer's motion for summary judgment in insured's action for uninsured motorist benefits after the insured fell while hurriedly stepping backward to avoid a speeding unidentified motorist because disinterested witness provision in policy, based on Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-284(e)(3), was exclusion or limitation of coverage.
|
|||||
| State v. Stallings, Nos. 93,879, 93,895,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, August 10, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not have a right to allocution before jury during the death penalty phase of capital murder trial because he was not permitted to do so under any Kansas statute, he had no due process right to address death penalty jury, and all convicted persons were treated equally in that they all had the right to allocute before sentencing judge.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
