In re Depew (, 359 P.3d 33 (Kan. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Depew (, 359 P.3d 33 (Kan. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …an appellate court can make a sua sponte inquiry into whether it has jurisdiction over a question presented to it on appeal. ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …prudential standing, on the other hand, embodies self-imposed judicial restraints on the exercise of jurisdiction. at p. 49 ⚠ not in text
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015 2020 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic, et al. v. Wrigley (2×)
N.D. · 2025 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
prudential standing, on the other hand, embodies self-imposed judicial restraints on the exercise of jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools
Tenn. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the seminal united states supreme court case on the political question doctrine is baker v. carr.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab
Kan. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
given the differences in the genesis of the two systems, we do not feel compelled to abandon our traditional two-part analysis as the definitive test for standing in our state courts.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In re Equalization Appeal of Target Corp.
Kan. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
appellate courts have a duty to question jurisdiction on their own initiative
examined Cited as authority (quoted) In re Adoption of T.M.M.H. – Per Curiam (2×)
Kan. · 2018 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
an appellate court can make a sua sponte inquiry into whether it has jurisdiction over a question presented to it on appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Siebert v. Okun, M.D.
N.M. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Fund v. State, 359 P.3d 33, 46 (Kan. 2015) (holding that funds “composed of payments for a particular and specific purpose” that “were to be kept as separate funds and not as part of the general fund” were not public money).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Chauncey M. Depew, Respondent
Bar Docket 16184.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Aug 17, 2015.
359 P.3d 33
Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Kansas (4)

In a letter signed July 28, 2015, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Chauncey M. Depew, an attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 403).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, a complaint had been docketed by the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation. The complaint alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 531) (conflict of interest) and 8.4 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 680) (misconduct).

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 Chauncey M. Depew, 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 the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Chauncey M. Depew 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 the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 414).