Attorney General Opinion No. 1987-093 PDF Download

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
In Kansas, title by adverse possession cannot be invoked against a governmental subdivision of the state by a private individual.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
A member of a redevelopment committee of a city is an "employee" of the city, as that term is defined in subsection (d) of K.S.A. 75-6102. Accordingly, a member of such a committee is covered by the provisions of the Kansas tort claims act, including complete immunity for the functions set out at K.S.A. 75-6104, and is entitled to a legal defense in the event he or she is sued for acts or omissions in the scope of his or her employment. In the further event that a judgment is rendered against a committee member for such acts or omissions, he or she may look to the city for indemnification. Cited herein: K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 75-6102; K.S.A. 75-6104; 75-6108; 75-6109.500 To: Ronald S. Reuter, Roeland Park City Attorney.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 19-3548, a city and a public wholesale water supply district may enter into a water purchase contract for a term of forty years and any such contract may include an agreement for the purchase of water not actually received. Such a contract does not violate the cash-basis law (K.S.A. 10-1101 e̲t̲ s̲e̲q̲.), and the obligation of a city thereunder is payable solely from the revenues produced by the city's water system. Cited herein: K.S.A. 10-1101; 10-1116; 10-1116b; 19-3545; 19-3546; 19-3548.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
K.S.A. 20-105 provides that to be qualified to hold the office of justice of the supreme court or judge of the court of appeals, a person must have been regularly admitted to practice law in Kansas and have engaged in the active and continuous practice of law for a period of at least ten years prior to the date of appointment as justice or judge. Though the strict definition of "active practice" would require that the legal activities of the person in question be pursued on a full-time basis and constitute his regular business, the general rule that statutory provisions imposing qualifications for office should be construed in favor of those seeking to hold office would serve to soften this requirement. Thus, a potential nominee need not be a full-time trial attorney to be considered as actively engaged in the practice of law, and is not automatically disqualified merely for holding a position which does not require legal expertise. Cited herein: K.S.A. 20-105; 20-3002; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3707.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Under the provisions of Article 3, section 5 of the Kansas Constitution, no member of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission shall, while he or she is a member, hold any other "public office" by appointment. The term "public office" refers to the common-law concept of a public office, and except where the office of city attorney has been stripped of all prosecutorial and other sovereign power (through the exercise of home rule powers), a city attorney holds a public office. Cited herein: Kan. Const., Article 3, section 5.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
The mere fact that two members of a five-member city council in a city of the third class are married to each other does not violate the open meetings law or any other Kansas statute. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-3002; 13-2903; 15-101; 15-106; 15-201; 15-209; 75-4317; 75-4317a; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 75-4318.

Author: Curt Thomas Schneider
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 2

View

Book Description
"The use of the word "or" in a statute has usually been interpreted "disjunctive". When used in the "con- junctive" sense, the context must clearly indicate legislative intent that the words "and" and "or" be used interchangeably. Where "or" is used in the "alter- native sense", it is "disjunctive". K.S.A. 79-307a requires all cattle to be reported for taxation by one alternative or the other, and not both."

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
The consensus estimating group is not a "public body" within the meaning of the KOMA, but an independent group which has no statutory authority or duties. Therefore, it is not subject to the requirements of the KOMA. Cited herein: K.S.A. 75-4318; 75-6701.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Since it is the client's intent which governs the distinction between privileged and non-privileged communications, a determination of whether or not information exchanged between attorney and client is privileged requires a case-by-case consideration. To ensure compliance with the dictates of Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and K.S.A. 60-426, when a supervising agency requests that an attorney release particular client information for enumerative or evaluative purposes, the attorney may either obtain the client's consent to do so, or, if the client refuses, compile the requested data in a less intrusive manner. If, however, the agency requests the data for purposes of determining a client's financial eligibility onto satisfy funding requirements, the exception to the privilege under DR-4-101(C)(4) would apply, making the aforementioned precautions unnecessary. Cited herein: K.S.A. 45-217; 45-221; 60-426; K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 20-3100, Supreme Court Rule No. 225, D.R. 4-101.

Author: Robert T. Stephan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Service of process is a condition precedent to an employee's request for the provision of defense counsel by a governmental entity, unless such condition is waived. If, after the employee has been served, the entity lawfully refuses to provide for such defense, and if the request was made in accordance with the statute, then the entity must reimburse the employee for attorney expenses incurred as a result of the retention of private counsel. Absent service of process, timely request for, and proper refusal of providing legal defense counsel, no right is conferred on the employee to retain private counsel at the expense of the governmental entity. Cited herein: K.S.A. 75-6103, 75-6108, 75-6109.