 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gilley v. Kan. Gas Serv. Co., No. 94,570,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding that the business class members had suffered no damages after it was found that the corporations were at fault in permitting natural gas to escape from a gas storage facility was appropriate pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-406 because there was no error in giving a limiting instruction regarding the testimony of a lay damages witness.
|
|||||
| In re Alig, No. 98,536,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.5(a), 8.4(d), and 5.5(a) by participating in an estate administration case that he was not qualified to handle; he was censured in accordance with Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(a)(3).
|
|||||
| In re Antosh, No. 98,537,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d) and was ordered to be disciplined by published censure, Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 203(a)(3).
|
|||||
| In re Appeal of Weisgerber, No. 96,550,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-32,117(b)(vi) did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Kansas and United States Constitutions, because the add-back provision of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 79-32,117(b)(vi) did not create a classification that resulted in disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals.
|
|||||
| In re Evans, No. 98,842,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas, because the attorney had failed to pay registration fees, failed to pay continuing legal education fees, and failed to complete the required continuing legal education hours for two decades.
|
|||||
| In re Petzold, No. 98,056,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was indefinitely suspended from practice of law where he violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(1) by representing client when his license was suspended, Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a) by practicing law with suspended license, and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 211(b) by failing to provide an answer to complaint filed by Kansas Disciplinary Administrator.
|
|||||
| In re Rathbun, No. 98,608,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was disbarred from practice of law where he violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 by failing to competently represent his client in a criminal case when he failed to interview witnesses to crime and Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a) by charging a fee that was nonrefundable; the violations reflected a pattern of misconduct that spanned a decade.
|
|||||
| In re Webb, No. 98,538,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Kansas where the attorney violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d) by failing to return unearned fees and unused monies advanced for expenses to clients and by failing to give a client reasonable notice that he would no longer be representing him.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Kan. Gas Serv. Co., No. 94,602,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 26, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners and operators of gas storage facility were entitled to judgment as matter of law under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-250 as property owners could not prevail on claims of nuisance and negligence in connection with emissions from gas storage facility absent evidence of physical injury to property or interference with use and enjoyment of property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
