Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha

Supreme Court of Kansas

Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha

391 P.2d 93, 192 Kan. 647, 1964 Kan. LEXIS 294

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 11, 1964

Docket42,535

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 391 P.2d 93 (Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha) 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

Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 391 P.2d 93, 192 Kan. 647, 1964 Kan. LEXIS 294 (kan 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

This is an appeal by defendants below from orders entered by the trial court on July 13, 1959, January 3, 1961, and January 4, 1961, but it has been admitted by the parties that the judgment entered on January 4, 1961, wherein the 1945 Water Appropriation Act of Kansas (G. S. 1949, 82a-701, et seq., as amended) was held to be in violation of the federal and state constitutions, and the orders of the court dated January 5, 1961, overruling defendants’ motions for new trial, are the controlling *648 and decisive issues in this appeal notwithstanding the fact sixteen trial errors were alleged and the appeal is based on nineteen specifications of error. This case has been before this court on four previous occasions. (Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 179 Kan. 72, 293 P. 2d 241; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 184 Kan. 223, 336 P. 2d 428; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 477, 351 P. 2d 204; Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 785, 352 P. 2d 1053.)

The parties stipulated the only question on appeal is whether the above-mentioned act is constitutional under both our federal and state constitutions. It is further contended by appellants, the chief engineer, and the city of Wichita, that the same question was determined in Williams v. City of Wichita, 190 Kan. 317, 374 P. 2d 578 (app. dis. 375 U. S. 7, 84 S. Ct. 46, 11 L. ed. 2d 38, pet. for rehearing denied, 375 U. S. 936, 84 S. Ct. 328, 11 L. ed. 2d 267), where the act was held to be constitutional, and appellees also recognize the question was answered in the Williams case. The only further argument propounded by the appellees is that the Williams decision is erroneous and should be overruled.

Reference is hereby made to the opinion in the Williams case for a full disclosure of facts and a complete discussion of all the authorities, which need not be reiterated herein.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Schroeder, J., dissents. Fontron, J., not participating.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

This is an appeal by defendants below from orders entered by the trial court on July 13, 1959, January 3, 1961, and January 4, 1961, but it has been admitted by the parties that the judgment entered on January 4, 1961, wherein the 1945 Water Appropriation Act of Kansas (G. S. 1949, 82a-701, et seq., as amended) was held to be in violation of the federal and state constitutions, and the orders of the court dated January 5, 1961, overruling defendants’ motions for new trial, are the controlling *648 and decisive issues in this appeal notwithstanding the fact sixteen trial errors were alleged and the appeal is based on nineteen specifications of error. This case has been before this court on four previous occasions. (Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 179 Kan. 72, 293 P. 2d 241; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 184 Kan. 223, 336 P. 2d 428; City of Hesston v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 477, 351 P. 2d 204; Cities of Hesston & Sedgwick v. Smrha, 186 Kan. 785, 352 P. 2d 1053.)

The parties stipulated the only question on appeal is whether the above-mentioned act is constitutional under both our federal and state constitutions. It is further contended by appellants, the chief engineer, and the city of Wichita, that the same question was determined in Williams v. City of Wichita, 190 Kan. 317, 374 P. 2d 578 (app. dis. 375 U. S. 7, 84 S. Ct. 46, 11 L. ed. 2d 38, pet. for rehearing denied, 375 U. S. 936, 84 S. Ct. 328, 11 L. ed. 2d 267), where the act was held to be constitutional, and appellees also recognize the question was answered in the Williams case. The only further argument propounded by the appellees is that the Williams decision is erroneous and should be overruled.

Reference is hereby made to the opinion in the Williams case for a full disclosure of facts and a complete discussion of all the authorities, which need not be reiterated herein.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Schroeder, J., dissents. Fontron, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 P.2d 93, 192 Kan. 647, 1964 Kan. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cities-of-hesston-sedgwick-v-smrha-kan-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack