History:
L. 1872, ch. 37, § 3; L. 1917, ch. 310, § 2; R.S. 1923, 74-503; L. 1931, ch. 280, § 2; L. 1953, ch. 364, § 2; L. 1961, ch. 377, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 310, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 5, § 2; Repealed, L. 1995, ch. 156, § 16; Repealed, L. 1995, ch. 236, § 16; May 4.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned; manner of appointment of board of examiners in optometry constitutional. Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638, 649, 298 P.2d 316.
2. Cited; relationship among state board of agriculture, its division of markets and the grain sorghum commission examined. Farmers Co-op Ass'n v. Kansas Bd. of Agriculture, 240 Kan. 355, 356, 729 P.2d 1190 (1986).
3. Electoral process used to select Kansas state board of agriculture likely violates one person, one vote; injunction granted. Hellebust v. Brownback, 812 F. Supp. 1136, 1137, 1139 (1992).
4. Statutory system where Kansas board of agriculture is elected by farm organization delegates violates equal protection; remedies for addressing violation examined. Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1511, 1513, 1518, 1522, 1524 (1993).
5. Whether exception to one person one-vote rule for governmental units having limited focus applied to selection of board of agriculture examined. Hellebust v. Brownback, 42 F.3d 1331, 1333 (1994).
Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1511 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 5דK.S.A. § 74-503 (1992). The members of the board, in turn, elect the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture.”
Hellebust v. Brownback, 812 F. Supp. 1136 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 4ד2 K.S.A. § 74-503 (1991 Supp.). Representatives of various agricultural organizations in Kansas send delegates to the annual meeting who in turn elect members of the Board.”
Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1524 (D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 2דK.S.A. § 74-503 (1992). The terms of some of the members of the Board would have expired on January 13, 1993, unless reelected, except that the statute provides that a board member shall remain in that position “until their successors are elected and qualified.”
Hellebust v. Brownback, 824 F. Supp. 1506 (D. Kan. 1993). “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that the preliminary injunction issued by this court on January 13, 1993 enjoining the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all other persons in active concert and participation with the defendants from…”
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.