Legal Opinion

City of Topeka v. Imming

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided March 11, 2015No. 112869PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hill, J.:

The only question we must answer in this appeal is whether Christopher Imming is entitled to a court order compelling the City of Topeka to either repeal Ordinance No. 19915—an ordinance calling for the City to buy Heartland Park of Topeka— or hold a municipal election and let the voters decide the issue. Because the law creating STAR bonds—the method chosen by the City to finance its purchase—permits a referendum election only in cases where a protest petition is filed and Imming’s petition is not a protest petition, we hold he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling an…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. City of McCall v. BuxtonIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Theis v. duPont, Glore Forgan Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1973
  3. Waterview Resolution Corp. v. AllenSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002
  4. McAlister v. City of FairwaySupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  5. City of Wichita v. Kansas Taxpayers Network, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1994

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jayhawk Racing Props., LLC v. City of TopekaCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2018
  2. City of Wichita v. PeterjohnCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2022
  3. Jayhawk Racing Properties v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API