findings hearing in Kansas

2009In re McPherson, 287 Kan. 434, 440-41 , 196 P.3d 921 (2008); In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 636 , 78 P.3d 442 (2003).

2009In re McPherson, 287 Kan. 434, 440-41 , 196 P.3d 921 (2008); In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 636 , 78 P.3d 442 (2003).

2009In re McPherson, 287 Kan. 434, 440-41 , 196 P.3d 921 (2008); In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 636 , 78 P.3d 442 (2003).

2009In re McPherson, 287 Kan. 434, 440-41 , 196 P.3d 921 (2008); In re Lober, 276 Kan. 633, 636 , 78 P.3d 442 (2003).

2008In In re Ketter, 268 Kan. 146 , 992 P.2d 205 (1999), the panel found a violation of KRPC 8.4 by reason of a 1998 misdemeanor conviction which arose out of an incident in a Topeka grocery store parking lot.

2008In In re Ketter, 268 Kan. 146 , 992 P.2d 205 (1999), the panel found a violation of KRPC 8.4 by reason of a 1998 misdemeanor conviction which arose out of an incident in a Topeka grocery store parking lot.

1991In the present case, however, the controlling facts are undisputed and we cannot find that the teacher involved here was in any way prejudiced by the failure of the school board to make specific findings of fact in rejecting the recommendation of the hearing committee.” 227 Kan. at 80 .

1991We will not possibly jeopardize the educational opportunities of the schoolchildren and order reinstatement as Loewen claims *624 Bogart, 423 F. Supp. 895 , and Coats v. U.S.D.

1984In State v. Pringle, 233 Kan. 726, 732 , 667 P.2d 283 (1983), the court reviewed what weight should be accorded the findings of a hearing panel in a disciplinary proceeding: “The findings of a panel should be accorded some weight, although the panel’s report is advisory and not binding on the court.

1984In State v. Pringle, 233 Kan. 726, 732 , 667 P.2d 283 (1983), the court reviewed what weight should be accorded the findings of a hearing panel in a disciplinary proceeding: “The findings of a panel should be accorded some weight, although the panel’s report is advisory and not binding on the court.

1984State v. Freeman, 229 Kan. 639, 644 , 629 P.2d 716 (1981).

1984State v. Freeman, 229 Kan. 639, 644 , 629 P.2d 716 (1981).

1977The Commission determined that the costs of the Sunflower Plant should be rolled-in or pooled with those of CKP’s other facilities, and its benefits shared proportionately by all of CKP’s customers. . . .” We must remain mindful that the corporation commission has been vested by the legislature with wide discretion (General Communication System, Inc. v. State Corporation Commission, 216 Kan. 410, 418 , 532 P. 2d 1341 ) and the commission’s findings have a presumption of validity on review.

1977The Commission determined that the costs of the Sunflower Plant should be rolled-in or pooled with those of CKP’s other facilities, and its benefits shared proportionately by all of CKP’s customers. . . .” We must remain mindful that the corporation commission has been vested by the legislature with wide discretion (General Communication System, Inc. v. State Corporation Commission, 216 Kan. 410, 418 , 532 P. 2d 1341 ) and the commission’s findings have a presumption of validity on review.

1977(Class 1 Rail Carriers v. State Corporation Commission, 191 Kan. 201, 207 , 380 P. 2d 396 .) The scope of judicial review of an order of the corporation commission is set forth in K.

1977(Class 1 Rail Carriers v. State Corporation Commission, 191 Kan. 201, 207 , 380 P. 2d 396 .) The scope of judicial review of an order of the corporation commission is set forth in K.

1963(Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 181 Kan. 817 , 316 P. 2d 277 .) The courts dignify the commission’s findings with a presumption of validity in reviewing the property of its orders.

1963(Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 181 Kan. 817 , 316 P. 2d 277 .) The courts dignify the commission’s findings with a presumption of validity in reviewing the property of its orders.

1941We agree with that conclusion and find no error in the refusal to set aside the answer to question 19. (7 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, p. 6019 et seq.; Insurance Co. v. Weeks, 45 Kan. 751 , 26 Pac. 410 ; Bank v. Colton, 102 Kan. 365 , 170 Pac. 992 ; Jones v. Brotherhood of L.

1941We agree with that conclusion and find no error in the refusal to set aside the answer to question 19. (7 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, p. 6019 et seq.; Insurance Co. v. Weeks, 45 Kan. 751 , 26 Pac. 410 ; Bank v. Colton, 102 Kan. 365 , 170 Pac. 992 ; Jones v. Brotherhood of L.

1941We agree with that conclusion and find no error in the refusal to set aside the answer to question 19. (7 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, p. 6019 et seq.; Insurance Co. v. Weeks, 45 Kan. 751 , 26 Pac. 410 ; Bank v. Colton, 102 Kan. 365 , 170 Pac. 992 ; Jones v. Brotherhood of L.

1926Appellee cites Redden v. Bausch, 110 Kan. 625, 629 , 204 Pac. 752 , where it was said: “We think the evidence does not support the findings as to waiver and that other findings are inconsistent with each other and insufficient to form a basis for a judgment.” In that case a new trial was ordered.

1926Appellee cites Redden v. Bausch, 110 Kan. 625, 629 , 204 Pac. 752 , where it was said: “We think the evidence does not support the findings as to waiver and that other findings are inconsistent with each other and insufficient to form a basis for a judgment.” In that case a new trial was ordered.