Jump To Navigation

News

News

Business

Read More

Personal Injury

Read More

Real Estate

Read More

Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/08] DG v. DeVaughn
In a class action against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services claiming that the department's agency-wide foster care policies and practices exposed all class members to an impermissible risk of harm, the district court's order certifying a class is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs presented more than conclusory statements that defendants' agency-wide monitoring policies and practices, or lack thereof, created a risk of harm shared by the entire class; 2) due to the common risk of harm and the common underlying legal theory for asserting that risk, the district court acted within its discretion to find that typicality was satisfied; and 3) the injunction sought by plaintiffs applied to the proposed class as a whole without requiring differentiation between class members.

[01/14] Arthur v. Arthur
In a dissolution of marriage action, judgment of the trial court permitting the wife to relocate after twenty months is vacated where, the petition for relocation should have been denied as a best interests determination in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Read More

Probate Trusts

[01/29] Estate of Artall v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In the taxpayer's appeal from the tax court's approval of the IRS Commissioner's disallowance of a "qualified family-owned business interest" estate tax deduction to the taxpayer estate, the tax court's order is affirmed where the "qualified family-owned business interest" deduction of 26 U.S.C. section 2057 is available for an estate's qualifying equity or ownership interests but not for debt interests such as loans receivable.

[01/22] Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero
In an interpleader action by a bank seeking to determine the ownership of an IRA account held by decedent, summary judgment for the named beneficiaries of the IRA is affirmed where: 1) the surviving spouse protections in ERISA did not apply to the IRA even though some of the funds originated from an ERISA-protected pension plan, and 2) the Internal Revenue Code also did not impose automatic surviving spouse rights on IRAs similar to those protections afforded under ERISA.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Norton, Hubbard, Ruzicka, Kreamer & Kincaid, L.C. | 130 North Cherry | P.O. Box 550 Olathe, KS 66061 | 913-712-9165 | Fax: 913-782-2012 | Get Directions

The law firm of Norton, Hubbard, Ruzicka, Kreamer & Kincaid represents people in Kansas and Missouri, including Olathe, Overland Park, Shawnee, Lenexa, Leawood, Merriam, Gardner, Mission Hills, Fairway, Desoto, Spring Hill, Kansas City, Liberty and all cities within Johnson County, Miami County, Franklin County, Leavenworth County, Douglas County, Shawnee County and Jackson County.

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.