Attorney General Opinion No. 1999-026 PDF Download

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Corporations doing business in Kansas must file an annual report with the Secretary of State pursuant to K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-7503. The Secretary of State is authorized to reject an annual report when the filing party is unable to provide the information required by K.S.A. 17-6007 because the incorporator has failed to perfect the organization of the corporation within a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, the Secretary of State is authorized to reject the filing of articles of incorporation from a nonprofit entity when the incorporator fails to provide the conditions of membership as required by K.S.A. 17-6002(a)(4). Cited herein: K.S.A. 17-6002, as amended by 1999 HB 2161; K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-6005; K.S.A. 17-6006; 17-6007; 17-6008; K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-7402; K.S.A. 17-7503.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Subsection (c) of K.S.A. 25-4323 states that no more than one less of a majority of a local governing body may be subject to recall at the same time. The number of members serving on a three-member board who may be subject to recall at the same time is one. A local officer is subject to recall once a petition seeking recall of the officer is properly filed. If a petition seeking recall of one member of a three-member governing body has been filed with the county election officer and the county election officer has determined the petition was properly filed, a petition seeking recall of a second member may not be approved by the county election officer until after the recall election on the first member has been conducted. While a petition seeking recall of a second member of a three-member governing body may not be approved until the recall election on the first member is conducted, the petition may still be circulated. Cited herein: K.S.A. 25-4301; 25-4302, as amended by L. 1999, Ch. 105, section 8; 25-4318; 25-4322, as amended by L. 1999, Ch. 105, section 9; 25-4323; 25-4324, as amended by L. 1999, Ch. 105, section 10; 25-4326; Kan. Const., Art. 4, section 3; L. 1987, Ch. 130, section 1; L. 1978, Ch. 147, sections 2, 6; L. 1976, Ch. 178, section 26.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
Documents related to an investigation conducted by an attorney for his or her client in order to provide legal advice to the client, may be closed under the Kansas Open Records Act because they are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Cited herein: K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 45-217; K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 45-221; 60-226; K.S.A. 60-426.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
A citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction. In order to ensure exercise of this right, state statute and the national voter registration act require that sites designated as places of registration be open to the public at large. Designation of sites which are not open to the public at large may result in legal action against the public entity responsible for the operation of the place of registration. Cited herein: KS. A. 25-2302; 25-2303; 25-2309; 252310; 25-2311; 25-2312; 25-2313; 42 U.S.C.A. section 1973gg; 42 U.S.C.A. section 1973gg-5; 42 U.S.C.A. section 1973gg-9.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
A nurse licensure compact which purports to grant unrestricted recognition of nursing licenses issued in other states would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Cited herein: K.S.A. 8-236; K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 65-1115; 65-1116; Kan. Const., Art. 2, section 30.

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

View

Book Description
In legislation enacted as local economic regulation, classifications that are rationally related to a legitimate state interest do not offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. New section one of 1990 House Bill No. 2601 that distinguishes property located within corporate city limits from rural property does not offend the Equal Protection Clause. Cited herein: U.S. Const., Amend. XIV.

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

View

Book Description
Current statutes concerning the powers and duties of county officials do not authorize boards of county commissioners to enter into interlocal agreements which unilaterally require county attorneys or their staff to prosecute in municipal court for violations of a municipal DUI ordinance. If a city has enacted a DUI ordinance, violations of that ordinance which fall within the city's jurisdiction may be prosecuted in municipal court. Such prosecutions may be undertaken by an attorney authorized by the city to appear in municipal court on behalf of the city. Likewise, defense costs for indigent defendants may be paid to attorneys properly hired by the city for such purposes. Compensation paid by the city to such prosecutors or other attorneys may be contractually shared with or paid to a third party (such as a county) if that party provides contractual consideration for such payments and if the city is expending funds which may be utilized for such purposes. Attorneys involved in representation of two or more public entities must resolve potential statutory or ethical conflict of interest issues. Cited herein: K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 8-1567; K.S.A. 12-2901; K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 12-2909; K.S.A. 12-4104; K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 12-4106; K.S.A. 19-701; 19-702; 22-2401a; K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 75-4301a.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
State v. Murry(1) does not stand for the general proposition that law enforcement officers are authorized to obtain a warrantless extraction of blood once a person suspected of driving under the influence has refused, pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001, to consent to a blood test. The statute currently authorizes additional testing after refusal only if the certifying officer has probable cause to believe that the person operated a vehicle while under the influence and in such a manner as to have caused the death of or serious injury to another person. Cited herein: K.S.A. 8-1001; 8-1002.

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

View

Book Description
In 3̲2̲4̲ ̲L̲i̲q̲u̲o̲r̲ ̲C̲o̲r̲p̲.̲ ̲v̲.̲ ̲D̲u̲f̲f̲y̲, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of New York's statutory scheme for maintenance and control of retail liquor prices was in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court also held that New York's pricing system would not be saved under the "state-action exemption" from the antitrust laws (due to the fact that the state did not actively supervise the pricing system) or the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution (because the asserted state interests were not substantiated and did not suffice to afford such immunity). In Kansas, distributors are to file current bottle and case prices with the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is required to establish a minimum markup to be added on to the bottle price on file at the time of retail sale. The Board does not regulate the prices posted by distributors and has not adjusted the markup percentage for distilled spirits for approximately ten years. The pricing system for alcoholic liquor sales in Kansas is so closely aligned with that of New York that it too is in violation of antitrust laws. As a practical matter, prices are set by private industry and the State does not "actively" supervise the pricing system. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court held that unsubstantiated claims that the system promotes temperance and protects small liquor retailers are not sufficient to afford immunity under the Twenty-first Amendment. Cited herein: K.S.A. 41-1101; 41-1111; 41-1114; 41-1115; 41-1116; 41-1117; 41-1118; K.A.R. 13-4-2; 15 U.S.C. section 1.

Author: Carla J. Stovall
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
A series of meetings, each of which involves less than a majority of a quorum of a public body, but collectively totaling a majority of a quorum, at which there is a common topic of discussion of the business or affairs of that body constitutes a meeting for purposes of the Kansas Open Meetings Act. Cited herein: K.S.A. 75-4317; 75-4317a; 75-4318.