In Re the Care & Treatment of Palmer
Court of Appeals of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hill, J.;
We affirm the trial court in this case and reject all three of the claims of error raised by the appellant. Mark Palmer contends the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss his sexually violent predator case when one of the evaluators at Lamed State Security Hospital opined he was not a predator while another evaluator said he was. Because this evidence arose after Palmer stip ulated there was probable cause to believe he was a sexually violent predator, we hold Palmer’s motion to dismiss was really a motion for summary judgment. Obviously, to rule upon such a motion, the trial…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Kansas v. CraneSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
- State v. ReidSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
- Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLCSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 2019
- In re Care & Treatment of JonesCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2020
- In re the Care & Treatment of RitchieCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2013