 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, No. 94,698,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patient should not have been granted 30-day extension within which to serve physicians under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-203(a) because doctrine of unique circumstances did not apply because the patient's counsel admitted that untrue boilerplate statements were supplied in her proposed order and no other information was provided other than the order.
|
|||||
| Guillory v. State, No. 96,610,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 motion, which was summarily denied. There was no jurisdiction to hear appeal because defendant's notice of appeal was untimely and Ortiz exceptions were inapplicable, as there was no statutory requirement to be informed of right to appeal, and there was no right to appointment of counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Araujo, No. 94,831,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bcause the out-of-court statements of the 911 caller were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted and were not hearsay, defendant's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights was not implicated by the officers' testimony.
|
|||||
| State v. Chetwood, Nos. 96,716, 96,717,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's due process rights were violated because the terms of a plea agreement where probation was recommended for two felonies were undermined by the testimony of a community corrections officer, who, after being introduced by the State, stated that her recommendation in the case was imprisonment.
|
|||||
| State v. Sappington, No. 94,416,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery were proper, in part pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 20-311d because the judge's reference to defendant as a "homicidal time bomb" in a prior triple-murder case did not demonstrate that he was currently biased or prejudiced against defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Sappington, No. 94,415,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mistrial was properly denied under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3423 because, although the State mistakenly played the wrong confession tape, the jury only heard Miranda warnings - no questions were asked, no information about the instant case was revealed, and the jury could have concluded that defendant was questioned multiple times in the instant case.
|
|||||
| State v. Uhlig, No. 96,663,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 2, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress evidence found in defendant's room during search was properly denied as there was no Fourth Amendment violation due to his diminished expectation of privacy as a probationer; there was reasonable suspicion to search based on defendant's delay and admission that he was concealing cigarettes, which violated his juvenile probation.
|
|||||
| State v. Cosby, No. 94,609,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 9, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. King, No. 95,088,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
