From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mullokandova

Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Jan 15, 2016
364 P.3d 579 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)

Summary

affirming denial of motion to reconsider because “[t]he evidence itself must be newly discovered. Counsel's new realization that the evidence could perhaps have helped at the earlier hearing does not make the evidence newly discovered.”

Summary of this case from State v. Wilson

Opinion

No. 112,921.

01-15-2016

In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Ella Mullokandova, Appellee, and Nison KIKIROV, Appellant.

Judith C. Hedrick, of Lenexa, for appellant. Ronald W. Nelson, of Ronald W. Nelson, PA, of Lenexa, for appellee.


Decision Without Published Opinion

Affirmed.


Summaries of

In re Mullokandova

Court of Appeals of Kansas.
Jan 15, 2016
364 P.3d 579 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)

affirming denial of motion to reconsider because “[t]he evidence itself must be newly discovered. Counsel's new realization that the evidence could perhaps have helped at the earlier hearing does not make the evidence newly discovered.”

Summary of this case from State v. Wilson
Case details for

In re Mullokandova

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Ella Mullokandova, Appellee, and Nison…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Date published: Jan 15, 2016

Citations

364 P.3d 579 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

State v. Wilson

The same is true for denials of motions to reconsider. See In re Marriage of Mullokandova, & Kikirov No.…