Board of Satanta Joint Rural High School District No. 2 v. Haskell County Planning Board

416 P.2d 791, 197 Kan. 321, 1966 Kan. LEXIS 385
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 14, 1966
DocketNo. 44,518
StatusPublished

This text of 416 P.2d 791 (Board of Satanta Joint Rural High School District No. 2 v. Haskell County Planning Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Satanta Joint Rural High School District No. 2 v. Haskell County Planning Board, 416 P.2d 791, 197 Kan. 321, 1966 Kan. LEXIS 385 (kan 1966).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kaul, J.:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the district court entered in favor of defendants-appellees, The Haskell County Planning Board and the Members thereof, in a declaratory judgment action. Plaintiffs-appellants also appeal from an order of the district court dismissing the action as to the defendant, appellee, Adel Throckmorton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The action arises out of the same controversy involved in a companion case entitled: Board of Satanta v. Grant County Planning [322]*322Board, 195 Kan. 640, 408 P. 2d 655, decided by this court on December 11, 1965.

The facts in the instant case are similar to those involved in the companion case. The issues of law appear to be identical in the two actions and on oral argument, before this court, appellants’ counsel conceded such to be the cáse.

The same basic question was presented in both cases: Is the State Superintendent authorized to conclusively determine whether “gray-area” shall be transferred from one planning unit to another? The question was resolved in the affirmative in Board of Satanta v. Grant County Planning Board, supra, and that opinion is adopted and incorporated herein as controlling and determinative of the issues raised in this appeal.

It would serve no useful purpose to restate the reasons for our previous decision.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 P.2d 791, 197 Kan. 321, 1966 Kan. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-satanta-joint-rural-high-school-district-no-2-v-haskell-county-kan-1966.