In Re Boaten, 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Boaten, 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2013–2014 · …there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation. ⚠ not in text
75 citation events (75 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gannon v. State (kan, 2014-03-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Gannon v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Ultreras
Kan. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners
Kan. · 2009 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there is a presumption that the 974 legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Frick Farm Properties, L.P. v. State, Department of Agriculture (2×) also: Cited "see"
Kan. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the act creates a rule which requires holders to undertake minimal acts indicative of ownership, e.g., use, at least once every 5 years
cited Cited as authority (rule) Speth v. Whitham Farms Feedyard, L.P. (In Re Sunbelt Grain WKS, LLC)
D. Kan. · 2010 · confidence medium
Dept. of Agric., 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870, 889 (2006). 18 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mull Drilling Co. v. SemCrude, L.P. (In re SemCrube, L.P.)
Bankr. D. Del. · 2009 · confidence medium
Additionally, Kansas courts should generally “construe statutes to avoid unreasonable results and should presume that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.” Id. (quoting Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 , 132 P.3d 870, 889 (2006)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re SemCrude, LP
Bankr. D. Del. · 2009 · confidence medium
Additionally, Kansas courts should generally "construe statutes to avoid unreasonable results and should presume that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation." Id. (quoting Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 , 132 P.3d 870, 889 (2006)).
cited Cited "see" Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc.
Kan. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 , Syl. ¶ 9, 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (statutes are construed to avoid unreasonable results).
discussed Cited "see" Stueckemann v. City of Basehor
Kan. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1146 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014) (citing Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 [2006] ["'There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.'"]; Wright v. Noell, 16 Kan. 601, 606 , 1876 WL 1081 [1876] [Accepting defendant's argument would incorrectly make part of language "manifestly surplusage."]).
discussed Cited "see" Stueckemann v. City of Basehor
Kan. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1146 , 319 P.3d 1196 (2014) (citing Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 [2006] [“ There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.’ ”]; Wright v. Noell, 16 Kan. 601, 606 , 1876 WL 1081 [1876] [Accepting defendant’s argument would incorrectly make part of language “manifestly surplusage.”]).
discussed Cited "see" Vontress v. State
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. at 1146 (quoting Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 [2006] [“ ‘There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.’ ”]).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Holt
Kan. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (There is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation.).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Coman
Kan. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (courts presume legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation).
discussed Cited "see" Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc.
Kan. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 825 , 248 P.3d 256 (2011) (citing Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 [2006]) (we presume the legislature knew existing law and intended to change that law with its enactment); Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625, 631-32 , 176 P.3d 938 (2008).
discussed Cited "see" Creten v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Kan. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (courts should construe statutes to avoid unreasonable results and should presume the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation).
cited Cited "see" Medina v. Board of Trustees of the Police & Fire Retirement Board
Kan. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006).
cited Cited "see" Medina v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF POLICE & FIRE
Kan. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006). *347 Medina relies on Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842 , 610 P.2d 1107 (1980), for support.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hendrix (2×)
Kan. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Department of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603 , Syl. ¶ 9, 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation).
cited Cited "see" Hamlin v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Kan. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 631 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Stewart (2×)
Kan. · 2026 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare In re Boaten, 281 Kan. 390 , 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (attorney converted to his own use settlement proceeds belonging to his clients and repeatedly testified falsely before the hearing panel); In re Janoski, 316 Kan. 370 , 370-71, 516 P.3d 125 (2022) (finding violations of KRPC 8.4[c] for lying to ex-spouse about hitting her phone from her hand intentionally while she recorded respondent stalking her); In re Ware, 279 Kan. at 889 (attorney, as in-house counsel, falsified employer's internal documents). 5.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clawson v. State, Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources
Kan. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 607 , 132 P.3d 870 (2003) (chief engineer initiated new proceedings to declare water rights abandoned by serving holder of water rights and issuing notice of hearing); Frick Farm Properties v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 289 Kan. 690 , 216 P.3d 170 (2009) (new proceedings initiated to declare water right abandoned by providing notice of hearing to water right holder); K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 82a-718(a) (declaration of abandonment of water right requires chief engineer to serve notice of hearing upon user at least 30 days prior to hearing…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Henry Osei Boaten, Respondent
95,689.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Apr 26, 2006.
132 P.3d 870
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 4 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Kansas (4)

In a letter dated April 25, 2006, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Henry O. Boaten, of Topeka, Kansas, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 309).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, review was pending before the Kansas Supreme Court on the final hearing report in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 212 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 297). The hearing panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated the following Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with his representation of two clients. The panel found that the respondent violated Rule 1.3 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 369) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct when he failed to diligently pursue matters in two cases; violated KRPC 1.4 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 383) by not keeping a client reasonably informed or complying with her requests for information; violated KRPC 1.5 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 397) in that the respondent charged an excessive fee by collecting a fee of 33 percent when federal law limited his attorney fees to 20 percent of any settlement; violated KRPC 1.15 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 431) in failing to safeguard clients’ property in his trust account, commingling his funds with client funds, converting client funds to his own use, and failing to promptly notify clients upon receipt of funds belonging to clients; violated KRPC 3.4 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 467) by knowingly disobeying an obligation after being ordered to pay money; violated KRPC 4.1 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 479) by making a false statement of material fact to an attorney; and violated KRPC 8.4(c) (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 504) by converting to his own use settlement proceeds belonging to his clients and repeatedly testifying falsely before the hearing panel.

[*391] Dated this 26th day of April, 2006.

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Henry O. Boaten be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that tire Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Henry O. Boaten from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that tire' costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 315).