 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State v. Marsh, No. 81,135,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, October 18, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because U.S. Supreme Court found that weighing equation in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4624(e) was not unconstitutional under Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, state supreme court vacated its finding regarding statute's unconstitutionality and remanded with directions to grant appellant new trial on capital murder and aggravated arson charges against him.
|
|||||
| In re Conservatorship of Chapman, No. 94,765,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, October 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In probate matter concerning children's conservatorship funds, trial court erred in allowing father, who was acting as children's conservator under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-3078, to receive credits against child support obligations when father, innocently and improperly, withdrew from children's funds from conservatorship to pay child support.
|
|||||
| State v. Araujo, No. 94,831,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, October 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug convictions were appropriate because the statements from a caller to police officers as to why he made a 911-call were not testimonial. Therefore, their admission did not violate defendant's right to confrontation under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 10.
|
|||||
| Warren v. Heartland Auto. Servs., No. 95,577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, October 20, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vehicle suffered damage after having oil changed at facility. Witness's testimony was admissible because objections to testimony of car owners' expert went to its weight. Testimony of another witness was not reversible error, and third witness's testimony was within scope of expertise; however, calculation of loss-of-use damages was incorrect.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
