subject of judicial inquiry in Kansas

1983E.g., Cosgrove v. Young, 230 Kan. at 706-713; Corbin v. Moser, 195 Kan. 252 , 403 P.2d 800 (1965); Shepard, Executrix v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.

1983E.g., Cosgrove v. Young, 230 Kan. at 706-713; Corbin v. Moser, 195 Kan. 252 , 403 P.2d 800 (1965); Shepard, Executrix v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.

1982E.g., Cosgrove v. Young, 230 Kan. at 706-713 ; Corbin v. Moser, 195 Kan. 252 , 403 P.2d 800 (1965); Shepard, Executrix v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.

1908Whether the legislature have, in the case at bar, acted within the scope of their authority, is, in our opinion, a proper subject of judicial inquiry.” (Page 7.) The Indiana court, however, receded from this position, and, in 1868, the decision in the case quoted from was expressly overruled in Gentile v. The State, 29 Ind. 409 .

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1907It was held that, while the power to create and regulate municipal corporations and define their boundaries is purely legislative, as the act authorized cities to enlarge their boundaries on certain conditions, depending upon certain facts, the existence of those conditions was made by the act the subject of judicial inquiry and determination; that the city council in its discretion made the local regulation, but that the question whether that discretion had been exercised within the limitations of the power delegated “is a judicial question pure and simple.” (Page 683.) The doctrine, of the c

1881Peckham, J., for the court says: “If the action of the defendant took the water away from the springs after it had reached there, after it had become part of an open running stream, then this action would lie.” In Pixley v. Clark, 35 N. Y. 520 , a different question was presented, but one which shows that the percolation of water may be the subject of judicial inquiry, notwithstanding the difficulties in the matter of proof.