Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUTHERAN HOME, INC. v. Board of County Commissioners

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 5, 1973No. 46,502Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKaul, J.

Because of the rule of stare decisis, which I believe applies with particular force to the decision in this case, I must respectfully dissent from the holdings in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the syllabus and the corre' sponding portions of the opinion which overrule Topeka Presbyterian Manor v. Board of County Commissioners, 195 Kan. 90, 402 P. 2d 802, and all other decisions contrary to today’s holding.

The instant case is disposed of by the court’s declaration:

“The basic reason why an exemption from taxation should be denied in this case is that the record does not disclose the existence of any…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Carroll v. KittleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1969
  2. Noel Ex Rel. Noel v. Menninger FoundationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1954
  3. Fredericka Home for the Aged v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Topeka Presbyterian Manor, Inc. v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1965
  5. Mason v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910

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

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

Powered by the Exa API