Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 75-4320a (2026)

Enforcement of act by district courts; burden of proof; court costs; precedence of cases

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

75-4320a. Enforcement of act by district courts; burden of proof; court costs; precedence of cases. (a) The district court of any county in which a meeting is held shall have jurisdiction to enforce the purposes of K.S.A. 75-4318 and 75-4319, and amendments thereto, with respect to such meeting, by injunction, mandamus, declaratory judgment or other appropriate order, on application of any person. The district court may require a defendant to complete training approved by the attorney general concerning the requirements of the open meetings act.

(b) In any action hereunder or under K.S.A. 75-4320d, and amendments thereto, the burden of proof shall be on the public body or agency to sustain its action.

(c) In any action hereunder, the court may award court costs to the person seeking to enforce the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4318 or 75-4319, and amendments thereto, if the court finds that the provisions of those statutes were violated. The award shall be assessed against the public body or agency responsible for the violation.

(d) In any action hereunder in which the defendant is the prevailing party, the court may award to the defendant court costs if the court finds that the plaintiff maintained the action frivolously, not in good faith or without a reasonable basis in fact or law.

(e) In any action hereunder brought by the attorney general or a county or district attorney, if the court finds that any provisions of K.S.A. 75-4318 or 75-4319, and amendments thereto, were violated, such court:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), may award the attorney general's or the county or district attorney's reasonable expenses, investigation costs and attorney fees; and

(2) shall award the same if the court determines that the violation was not made in good faith and without a reasonable basis in fact or law.

(f) Except as otherwise provided by law, proceedings arising under this section shall take precedence over all other cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date.

(g) As used in this section, "meeting" has the meaning provided by K.S.A. 75-4317a, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1981, ch. 344, § 2; L. 2015, ch. 68, § 18; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Stoldt v. City of Toronto, 678 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stoldt v. City of Toronto, 678 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 3× “In sustaining the appellees' motion for summary judgment the trial court stated: "K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 75-4320a, when read in conjunction with K.”

State Ex Rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 646 P.2d 1091 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 3× “75-4320a( b ) discourages any comparison with criminal actions, stating: "In any action hereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the public body or agency to sustain its action." We hold the KOMA is remedial in nature and therefore subject to broad construction in order to…”

Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson, 722 P.2d 1093 (Kan. 1986). “” K.S.A. 75-4320a(b) states: “In any action hereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the public body or agency to sustain its action.”

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Bd. of Seward Cnty. Comm'rs, 866 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 75-4320a(b) places the burden of proof on the public body or agency to sustain its action.”

Boster v. Philpot, 645 F. Supp. 798 (D. Kan. 1986). “Having determined that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on each of the claims against them, the court need not address the issue of whether defendants Voth and Philpot are entitled to qualified immunity.”

State v. Bd. of Educ., 764 P.2d 459 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “2d 1091 (1982); K.S.A. 75-4320a(b). 2. The April 11 Meeting The question presented in the instant case is whether the Board exceeded the applicable limitation of the KOMA providing that no subject shall be discussed in closed session except “personnel matters of non-elected…”

Krider v. Bd. of Trs. of Coffeyville Cmty. Coll., 83 P.3d 177 (Kan. 2004). ““(a) The district court of any county in which a meeting is held shall have jurisdiction to enforce the purposes of K.S.A. 75-4318 and 75-4319, and amendments thereto, with respect to such meeting, by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate order, on application of any person.”

Clark v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 287, 416 P.3d 1032 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “) K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 75-4320a(a). The Kansas Supreme Court noted that Stoldt sought "voidance of the city council's action, reinstatement, and monetary damages.”

Moeder v. U.S.D. No. 512 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “First, he argues that he has standing under K.S.A. 75-4320a(a) as a private individual to enforce the Kansas Open Meetings Act 4 using injunction, mandamus, declaratory judgment, or other appropriate orders.”

— K.S.A. § 75-4320a(a) — 2 cases

Clark v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 287, 416 P.3d 1032 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “) K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 75-4320a(a). The Kansas Supreme Court noted that Stoldt sought "voidance of the city council's action, reinstatement, and monetary damages.”

Moeder v. U.S.D. No. 512 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “First, he argues that he has standing under K.S.A. 75-4320a(a) as a private individual to enforce the Kansas Open Meetings Act 4 using injunction, mandamus, declaratory judgment, or other appropriate orders.”

— K.S.A. § 75-4320a(b) — 3 cases

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Bd. of Seward Cnty. Comm'rs, 866 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1994). “K.S.A. 75-4320a(b) places the burden of proof on the public body or agency to sustain its action.”

— K.S.A. § 75-4320a(h) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Murray v. Palmgren, 646 P.2d 1091 (Kan. 1982). “75-4320a( b ) discourages any comparison with criminal actions, stating: "In any action hereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the public body or agency to sustain its action." We hold the KOMA is remedial in nature and therefore subject to broad construction in order to…”

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.