Bailey v. Knapp, 185 P. 51 (Kan. 1919). · Go Syfert
Search
Bailey v. Knapp, 185 P. 51 (Kan. 1919). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Purdum v. Purdum
Kan. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Weil v. Lynds, 105 Kan. 440, 443 , 185 P. 51 (1919) (Witnesses in judicial proceedings enjoy an absolute privilege against slander actions so long as their answers to questions are some way pertinent to the issue being tried; otherwise they enjoy a qualified privilege, depending upon whether they “acted in good faith and believed the matter to be pertinent as well as true.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paul B. Bailey
v.
Fred W. Knapp, as State Auditor, etc.
No. 22,580.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Nov 8, 1919.
185 P. 51
Bennett R. Wheeler, S. M. Brewster, John L. Hunt, all of Topeka, and W. E. Archer, of Hiawatha, for the plaintiff., G. A. Spencer, A. R. Buzick, jr., and Thomas N. Mulloy, all of Salina, for the defendant.
Published
Per Curiam:

The action is a companion case to the preceding one. (Reilly v. Knapp, ante p. 565.) Plaintiff seeks to compel the state auditor to issue a warrant for his salary as stenographer of the district court for'the twenty-second judicial district. He was appointed court stenographer in 1904 and has held the position under that appointment ever since; during all this time he has been a nephew of the judge of the district court. The auditor made no objection to the payment of his salary until July 1, 1919, but contends that section 2 of the appropriation act of that year (Laws 1919, ch. 1) disqualified plaintiff from holding the position. Under the decision in the preceding case, holding section 2 of the appropriation act of 1919 unconstitutional, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

The writ will issue.