Felony record for james lee minor sedgwick county kansas
If you wanted to search for Corpus , but did not want any results with Habeas included, you could use:.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Docket Number List
It can not be used at the beginning or in the middle of words; it will be ignored. For example, if you wanted to search for "Clerk of Court" but wanted to account for small variations, such as Clerk of the Court , you could use:. Multiple terms or clauses can be combined and grouped together with parentheses to form sub-queries.
For example, if you wanted to find all the opinions with either burden of proof or burden of persuasion you could use: burden of proof persuasion In summary, searches support the following operators:.
JAMES LEE COLE Prison Records
If you enter in one or two terms, those terms must match. If you enter in three terms, 2 of them will have to match. If you enter in four or five, 3 will have to match, and so on. Hits against a party name will be favored over hits against opinion text and, consequently, will generally show up at the top of the results. If you enter in a search of one, two, or three terms, 1, 2, or all 3 terms will need to be matched respectively. A search for four terms will require 3.
A search against five will require 4, and so on. When a search is performed against an opinion, two variations are performed. The first does not modify the terms of the search phrase. If you search for Continuing , it will only look for that term exactly and favor any of those hits over the second variation. The second variation performs a stemming process, shortening each term to a root form. This makes it possible for common variations of the same word to be matched.
For example, the search for Continuing will also match words like Continuance , Continue , Continued , etc. Searches against a Case Name Most hits against a case name must be exact, and any hits will be favored heavily over any other field. Currently the following formats for a case will work as an example :. Other formats will likely work, but are not guaranteed to be favored over other hits. The first two formats will only return opinions for that exact case. The rest will also include any opinions which cite that case but, as a side affect of the search logic, will also include any opinions that simply contain the numbers entered.
District Court of Kansas Opinions This feature is for the convenience of our users. Opinions by Year:. Search Opinions. The deputies removed the soiled smock and walked Colbruno into the hospital without any clothes on except for a pair of orange mittens. The deputies passed through the ambulance bay, entrance, atrium, and hallways before they chained Colbruno to a bed. Hospital staff witnessed this conduct and reported it to the hospital risk manager because they found it disturbing. Colbruno filed suit against the six deputies under 42 U.
The deputies responded by asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- california diego license marriage san.
- looking for sex offenders in my area.
- chillicothe municipal ohio court docs divorce.
The district court denied the deputies qualified immunity and they appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and denied the deputies qualified immunity. However, Colbruno alleged that the deputies took more than two hours to transport him to the hospital after discovering his condition. In addition, Colbruno alleged that after walking him through the hospital, the deputies chained him to a bed instead of immediately seeking treatment.
Constitutional Law. Respondents were charged with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. They were also charged under 18 U. Dimaya, U. It then held that Mr. The Supreme Court held Section c 3 B is unconstitutionally vague. Hilburn v. Enerpipe, LTD. She alleged the cap violated her rights under section 5 and section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights declares, "The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate.
The noneconomic damages cap under K. Overturns Miller v. Johnson, Kan. Stegall concurs, and Luckert and Biles dissent. Plaintiffs Herbert C. Hodes, M. Doctors have shown they are substantially likely to ultimately prevail on their claim that Senate Bill 95 violates constitutional principles by severely limiting access to the safest procedure for second-trimester abortions. As a result, we affirm the trial court's injunction temporarily enjoining the enforcement of S. Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman's right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, "Yes. This can result in the Kansas Constitution protecting the rights of Kansans more robustly than would the United States Constitution. Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights sets forth rights that are broader than and distinct from the rights in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The rights acknowledged in section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights are judicially enforceable against governmental action that does not meet constitutional. Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.
Stegall, J. He states that the majority has, for the sake of political power, "reach[ed].
Cheeks, Kan. A jury convicted Jack R. LaPointe of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. The jury knew hairs found on clothing believed to be worn by the perpetrator probably did not belong to LaPointe. The district court granted the motion over the State's vigorous objections. The analysis confirmed one hair did not belong to LaPointe, while the other was inconclusive but probably not his. LaPointe sought a new trial, claiming the test results would have changed the original trial's outcome.
The district court and Court of Appeals denied that relief. LaPointe appeals and the state cross-appeals on the testing issue.
List of people from Wichita, Kansas
The Court refused to grant a new trial and agreed with the state on the testing issue, overruling Cheeks. Three justices, Beier, Luckert and Johnson would not have overruled Cheeks, they would simply hold that LaPointe was not similarly situated to defendants in the first degree murder and rape cases for which legislators wrote the DNA testing statute, and its provisions should not be extended to him. Crimes and Punishment.
A Target security guard saw defendant steal two phone cases after using some unknown device to remove them from a secure peg hook by cutting away the package. At the conclusion of the State's evidence the defendant moved for acquittal, arguing that the State presented no evidence that she possessed "a tool or device designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device from any merchandise.
The Court of Appeals reversed. The statute only prohibits possession of either a tool or device specifically designed to remove or defeat theft detection devices on merchandise. When the words of K. No rational factfinder could have found defendant guilty of possessing a tool or device designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device.