Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 22, 2016No. 113528Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiles, J.

I concur with the result that quo warranto is an appropriate remedy that must issue because initiative supporters failed to comply with K.S.A. 12-3013(a) by not filing both the petition and the proposed ordinance with the city clerk. There is no escaping that conclusion.

I dissent from the majority’s choice to evade the more substantive constitutional and statutory questions presented by this controversy, i.e., (1) whether the ordinance impermissibly conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by, uniform state law under the Home Rule Amendment to the Kansas Constitution, Article 12, § 5(b);…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of RepresentativesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1984
  2. Rogers v. ShanahanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  3. Wilson v. SebeliusSupreme Court of Kansas · 2003
  4. State Ex Rel. Hawks v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1953
  5. State ex rel. Vance v. City of TopekaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884

1 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