 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P. v. Turk, No. 94,697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16-205(b)(1), Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16a-2-510(2), and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16a-5-201(8), a court properly awarded attorney fees to debtors as a sanction for a creditor's violation of the Kansas Uniform Consumer Credit Code where the creditor had collected interest on interest after a default judgment was entered in its favor.
|
|||||
| Montoy v. State, No. 92,032,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By enacting 2006 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 197, the Kansas Legislature made suitable financing for public schools under Kan. Const. art. 6, § 6; a remand to a district court to allow for a challenge to this new legislation was not warranted because of the time the case had been pending and the fact that time was needed to determine the plan's impact.
|
|||||
| Sheets v. Simms, No. 94,704,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse its discretion in confirming a report by commissioners, which stated that partition in kind was not practicable and determined fair market value of real estate instead, where court explicitly followed Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1003 in reaching its decision; court permitted parties to nominate three statutorily required commissioners.
|
|||||
| State v. Collins, No. 94,953,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in instructing the jury on proximate cause during defendant's trial for involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3442, because defendant argued that the sole cause of the accident was the victim sitting on a stationary motorcycle in the middle of the road at night.
|
|||||
| State v. Stevens, No. 94,187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's deficient sample breath test was admissible in his prosecution under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1567(a)(3) (2005 Supp.) because such a test was included within the meaning of other competent evidence under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1013(f)(2) (2005 Supp.), and because other competent evidence was admissible under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 8-1005, 8-1006.
|
|||||
| State v. Tryon, No. 94,563,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, July 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant entered a plea to attempted manufacture of methamphetamine. Probable cause supported magistrate's issuance of search warrant because of defendant's erratic behavior in store, purchase of cold tablets in another store, purchase of distilled water in third store, and smell of ether coming from his house.
|
|||||
| Benchmark Ins. Co. v. Atchison, No. 94,266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 4, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an interpleader action filed by an insurer arising out of a single-car accident, the insurer had no duty to negotiate and settle with a passenger who was severely burned in the accident, where the insured did not assign her rights under the insurance policy to the passenger and the insured was not a party to the action.
|
|||||
| Schuyler v. Roberts, No. 95,482,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 4, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the inmate's petition for habeas corpus filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1501 was improper because the district court should have inquired whether the responsibilities and restrictions imposed upon him by a sex offender classification created a burden on him that significantly altered his status.
|
|||||
| State v. Bennett, No. 94,492,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, August 4, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation and reinstatement of defendant's probation violated her due process rights because State did not conduct a reasonable investigation in order to find her, and the delay of more than 2 years between issuance of a probation violation warrant and her arrest on the warrant was unreasonable and constituted a waiver of the probation violation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
