 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fiorella v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 94,628,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute between insurer and insured over underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-284 did not require UIM coverage in umbrella policy because statute's plain language made it clear that exclusion from mandatory coverage in umbrella policies applied to UIM coverage.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of X.J.A., No. 96,003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was not substantial compliance with the Kansas Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 53-501 et seq., where a biological mother did not appear before a notary and make the requisite declaration, and the notarial officer executed a false certification; therefore, there was no consent to adopt under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-2114(a).
|
|||||
| Martin v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 94,033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In administrative revocation hearing of driver's license, under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1020(h)(2), officer did not need to have reasonable suspicion for originally stopping vehicle because private interests involved in an administrative hearing were not weighed equally with the private interests involved in a criminal proceeding.
|
|||||
| State v. Black, No. 94,599,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon the revocation of defendant's probation, the trial court sentenced him to prison for possession of cocaine and credited defendant with 360 days for time already served. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4614a did not require the district court to grant jail time credit for time defendant served in a non-residential Adult Daily Reporting Center program.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, No. 94,758,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In defendant's trial for robbery and aggravated burglary, appellate court determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial on aggravated burglary charge, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3716, because the jury was most likely confused, given jury instructions and prosecutor's comments during closing argument.
|
|||||
| State v. Wahweotten, No. 94,523,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was prosecuted for DUI, failure to provide proof of automobile liability insurance, and refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test, evidence of the preliminary breath test refusal was admissible to prove refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1012.
|
|||||
| State v. Whitlock, No. 93,875,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed defendant's appeal of his conviction of indecent liberties with a child and indecent solicitation of a child because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal under both Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4704(f) (2005 Supp.), and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4721(c) and because it saw no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.
|
|||||
| White v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, No. 94,418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, September 15, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of drivers' license suspensions, petitions for judicial review were properly dismissed because failure to include each driver's mailing address in petitions for judicial review was a critical omission. Petitions did not strictly comply with the requirements of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-614(b)(1), and jurisdiction was not invoked.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
