 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Docking, No. 96,888,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was ordered to reimburse his former clients for a filing fee plus statutory interest and was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days for violating Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.16(d) as his misconduct caused his clients to suffer serious injury when the window of opportunity for a voluntary conservatorship passed.
|
|||||
| In re Garcia, No. 96,889,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2 by contacting the opposing party in a divorce case without first obtaining permission from that party's attorney was ordered to receive censure.
|
|||||
| In re Lampson, No. 96,884,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an attorney's conduct involved dishonesty and conversion of clients' property and violated Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 8.4 and Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 207, an indefinite suspension was proper rather than disbarment because mitigating factors of depression and drug addiction supported the lesser discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Laskowski, No. 96,886,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for violations of Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4 as his repeated driving while intoxicated amounted to a criminal act that reflected adversely on him, and being convicted of a felony and violating the terms and conditions of probation adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
|
|||||
| In re Miller, No. 96,578,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A two-year suspension from the practice of law imposed upon an attorney was appropriate because his egregious conduct included disguising items as compensable that were not, which amounted to unreasonable fees and misrepresentation contrary to Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 and 8.4(c).
|
|||||
| McIntosh v. Sedgwick County, No. 93,762,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In workers compensation matter, Workers Compensation Board erred in reducing an injured claimant's weekly benefits by amount of other retirement benefits because Board misinterpreted Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-501(h). Statutory language plainly stated that payment of compensation for permanent total disability should continue for duration of disability.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Graham, No. 94,120,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligent medical treatment case, doctor's motion to dismiss was properly granted as (1) patient failed to prosecute her first petition; (2) second petition was untimely as it was filed beyond 30 days tolled by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-4908 and past two-year statute of limitations period; and (3) third petition could not be saved by savings statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Cisneros, No. 96,365,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of defendant's probation was reversed as the trial court's jurisdiction had expired when his voluntary extension for probation was filed; thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify or extend defendant's probation under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3716 when the State initiated revocation proceedings.
|
|||||
| State v. Cooperwood, No. 92,488,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attempted voluntary manslaughter case, a psychiatrist's proffered testimony regarding the ineffectiveness of the victim's medications was not wrongfully excluded under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-407 as it was not a jury necessity for the psychiatrist, who had only reviewed the victim's records and reports, to so testify.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 94,366,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, December 8, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In murder case, witness's testimony regarding alleged accomplice's statement that defendant was calling was admissible because the statement was not testimonial and therefore did not implicate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause and defendant did not argue that it should not have been admitted under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(d)(3).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
