12-4105.
Municipal judge; appointment; qualifications; compensation.
The municipal court shall be presided over by a municipal judge. The judge shall be selected in the manner provided by statute. The person who is selected shall be:
(a) A citizen of the United States;
(b) a graduate of a high school or secondary school or the equivalent thereof; and
(c) (1) in cities other than cities of the first class, an attorney regularly admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas or certified by the supreme court in the manner prescribed by K.S.A. 12-4114, as qualified to serve as a municipal judge; or
(2) in cities of the first class an attorney regularly admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas.
The municipal judge shall receive a monthly or annual salary set by ordinance of the city in which such municipal judge presides, except where otherwise provided by law.
History:
L. 1973, ch. 61, § 12-4105; L. 1989, ch. 66, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
City of Junction City v. Griffin, 607 P.2d 459 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 8× “One section of the Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts, K.S.A. 12-4105, has been called to our attention as not being uniformly applicable to all cities and therefore permitting cities to opt out from under the code.”
City of Wichita v. Kansas Taxpayers Network, Inc., 874 P.2d 667 (Kan. 1994).
“In Griffin, we held that the Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts, K.S.A. 12-4105, was not uniformly applicable to all cities because one section applied only to cities of the first class.”
City of Shawnee v. Adem, 494 P.3d 134 (Kan. 2021).
“Municipal courts do not have the same powers as a district court, e.g., municipal courts cannot issue search warrants.”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Overland Park, 921 P.2d 234 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
“In Griffin , the Supreme Court considered the question of which individual statutes are considered part of a broader enactment: “In order to preserve the uniformity of the [Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts] it has been urged that [K.S.A. 12-4105] be declared no part…”
Farha v. City of Wichita, 161 P.3d 717 (Kan. 2007).
“at 337 (relying on K.S.A. 12-4105). Furthermore, the nonuniform portion of the Act could not be judicially excised or ignored; it was “clearly one of the sections composing] the enactment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.