 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abasolo v. State, No. 93,788,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court stated it was going to require appellant to "serve her sentence" after the revocation of her probation, but did not refer to appellant's "original sentence," all that was left was the pronouncement from the bench that appellant had to serve a 36-month prison term; thus, the trial court erred in affirming the 52-month sentence.
|
|||||
| Haddock v. State, No. 93,500,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by denying defendant's motion for additional DNA testing on hair under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-2512(f)(3) because it improperly found that DNA evidence was inconclusive, as postconviction DNA testing clearly established that hair in victim's hand was consistent with third-party female rather than defendant.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of M.R., No. 95,671,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because state agency's decision to remove children from their foster parents and to place them with their aunt and uncle was overly influenced, if not controlled, by an abstract or arbitrary preference for "blood," this sufficiently supported trial court's conclusion that agency failed to make reasonable efforts under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1584(d).
|
|||||
| McDermed v. State, No. 94,960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an aggravated robbery and kidnapping case, defendant's statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in the Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507 proceeding was not violated as the files and records of the case conclusively showed that defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims.
|
|||||
| Merriman v. Crompton Corp., No. 91,702,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: One defendant out of three foreign corporations was subject to Kansas personal jurisdiction under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-7301(b)(7) in an action under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act because the corporation had two operations within the state.
|
|||||
| State I-135/I-70 Drug Task Force v. 1990 Lincoln Town Car, No. 95,108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After a suppression order was granted and the State dismissed drug possession charges against defendant, denial of defendant's request to have his car and cash found therein returned under the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-4101 et seq. was proper as collateral estoppel did not apply to the suppression order.
|
|||||
| State v. Becker, No. 95,245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice the arresting officer read to defendant, who was driving with a commercial license, upon his arrest for DWI did not violate his substantive due process rights as the notice was in accordance with the law pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1001 and advised defendant of the impact a test failure would have on his noncommercial driving privileges.
|
|||||
| State v. Clemence, Nos. 92,114, 92,883,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, November 9, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's manufacture and possession of methamphetamine convictions were reversed as, under the Barker test, the State's dismissal and refiling of the criminal charges to gain tactical advantage violated defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial under U.S. Const. amend. VI, and exceeded the 180-day limitation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3402.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, No. 66,330,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, November 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of disbarment from practice of law, supreme court accepted recommendation of a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys that attorney should be reinstated because of application of eight factors, which favored reinstatement. Panel concluded that attorney had fully complied with court's orders and had met burden of proof.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
