 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Norris v. Hastings, No. 93,927,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment entered in favor of defendant was affirmed because plaintiff did not complete service of process within 90 days of the filing as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-203(a)(1), and the statute of limitations set forth in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513 had expired by the time plaintiff obtained proper service of process.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, No. 95650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Kansas Workers Compensation Board erred in holding that an employee suffered a 33.5 percent work disability and was entitled to benefits where Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-510e(a) contemplated that a wage loss had to be supported by an opinion of a physician; no physician was willing to restrict the employee's postinjury employment.
|
|||||
| Griffith v. McGovern, No. 94,513,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed the district court's decision confirming an arbitration award, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 5-412(a)(1), because the investor had not demonstrated that one arbitrator's non-disclosure of his involvement in two lawsuits did not show bias or prejudice and did not amount to fraud. Panel did not show a manifest disregard for the law.
|
|||||
| Seeber v. Ebeling, No. 94,666,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the doctor in the patient's medical malpractice action was proper because the doctor fulfilled his duty as an on-call physician and because there was no evidence presented that the doctor assumed the role of treating the patient, that he offered any medical advice, or that he assisted in the treatment plan.
|
|||||
| Upchurch v. State, No. 94,227,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion when it entered a summary denial of an inmate's second motion for postconviction relief, filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507, because the inmate showed that there were unusual circumstances warranting the second motion after a federal district court overturned the conviction.
|
|||||
| Dees v. Marion-Florence Unified Sch. Dist. No. 408, No. 95,321 n1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of education followed the contractual provisions in terminating the counselor's employment. The evidence established that the counselor, who worked at an elementary school, was not by contractual definition "fully qualified" to replace the high school counselor, who had less seniority than the counselor.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
