section 1 separation of powers doctrine (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

section 1 separation of powers doctrine in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Sierra Club v. Mosergreen
kan · 2013 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2022
2 sentences

2022Standing "[P]arties in a judicial action must have standing as part of the Kansas case-or- controversy requirement imposed by the judicial power clause of Article 3, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution." Moser, 298 Kan. at 29 .

2015See Sierra Club, 298 Kan. at 29 (common-law standing satisfies “die Kansas case-or-controversy requirement imposed by the judicial power clause of Article 3, § 1 of die Kansas Constitution”).

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Sebelius green
kan · 2008
2 sentences

2025Morrison v. Sebelius, 285 Kan. 875, 895-96 , 179 P.3d 366 [2008]).

2025Morrison v. Sebelius, 285 Kan. 875, 895-96 , 179 P.3d 366 [2008]).

12025–2025
In re Williams green
kan · 1908
2 sentences

2019On appeal, Williams argued the act regulating the sale of black powder violated the police power under section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment because it singled out the coal industry for special oversight. 79 Kan. at 213 -14 , 98 P. 777 .

2019On appeal, Williams argued the act regulating the sale of black powder violated the police power under section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment because it singled out the coal industry for special oversight. 79 Kan. at 213 -14 , 98 P. 777 .

12019–2019
Guardian Title Co. v. Bell green
kan · 1991
2 sentences

1991Finally, in Guardian Title Co. v. Bell, 248 Kan. 146 , 805 P.2d 33 (1991), the district court held that K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 40-2404b(14)(f) and (g) violated the constitutional requirement of separation of powers found in Article 2, § 1 of the Kansas Consti *599 tution.

1991Finally, in Guardian Title Co. v. Bell, 248 Kan. 146 , 805 P.2d 33 (1991), the district court held that K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 40-2404b(14)(f) and (g) violated the constitutional requirement of separation of powers found in Article 2, § 1 of the Kansas Consti *599 tution.

11991–1991
State ex rel. Rosenstahl v. Storey neutral
kan · 1936
1 sentence

1973(State, ex rel., v. Storey, 144 Kan. 311 , 58 P. 2d 1051 .) However, and as hereafter noted, subject to the “Home Rule” amendment (Article 12, Section 5), the residuum of legislative power is still vested in the legislative branch pursuant to Article 2, Section 1.

11973–1973
City of Topeka v. Gillett green
kan · 1884
1 sentence

1909This proposition is so evident that argument can not make it plainer, and is settled by many decisions of this court, among others, City of Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431 , 4 Pac. 800 , and The State v. Downs, 60 Kan. 788 , 57 Pac. 962 .

11909–1909
State ex rel. Godard v. Downs green
kan · 1899
2 sentences

1909This proposition is so evident that argument can not make it plainer, and is settled by many decisions of this court, among others, City of Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431 , 4 Pac. 800 , and The State v. Downs, 60 Kan. 788 , 57 Pac. 962 .

1909This proposition is so evident that argument can not make it plainer, and is settled by many decisions of this court, among others, City of Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431 , 4 Pac. 800 , and The State v. Downs, 60 Kan. 788 , 57 Pac. 962 .

11909–1909

Where else courts name it

OR 25 (1985–2022) TX 22 (1988–2025) PA 14 (1926–2020) TN 11 (1988–2024) KS 8 (1909–2025) OK 7 (2013–2025) CA 7 (1931–2020) NM 7 (1944–2025) MT 6 (1961–2019) IL 5 (1938–1988) HI 4 (2016–2025) NE 4 (1978–2002) NC 4 (2018–2022) IN 4 (1988–2012) CO 4 (1919–2008) UT 3 (1978–1999) ID 3 (1985–2024) NY 2 (1958–1976) OH 2 (1886–1935) MS 2 (1987–1999) AZ 2 (2010–2010) MO 2 (1932–1945) MD 2 (1997–2002) WY 2 (1942–1992) MA 2 (1912–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check