Concannon v. Board of County Com'rs of Linn County
Decision Date | 17 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 51461,51461 |
Citation | 626 P.2d 798,6 Kan.App.2d 20 |
Parties | Thantus M. CONCANNON, Administrator of the Estate of Mabel J. Concannon, deceased, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LINN COUNTY, Kansas, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The denial of a claim against a county by the board of county commissioners is not a judicial or quasi-judicial function reviewable on appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 19-223.
2. In this action to recover unpaid wages and for damages alleged to have been caused by the denial of plaintiff's claim pursuant to a home rule (anti- nepotism) resolution, it is held: (1) The disallowance of plaintiff's claim was nothing more nor less than the exercise by the executive of its administrative or ministerial power, and did not involve the exercise of judicial discretion; and (2) the district court has jurisdiction to hear the cause and to enter judgment on the merits.
Douglas G. Hudson of Hudson, Hudson & Mullies, Fort Scott, for appellant.
James L. Wisler, Mound City, and Stephen D. Hill, County Atty., for appellee.
Before ABBOTT, P. J., and REES and SPENCER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her action by the district court on grounds of want of jurisdiction. In so ruling, the trial court made and entered findings of fact, not challenged on appeal, which will serve to explain the nature of this cause:
As a result of the Board's decision to deny plaintiff compensation in excess of 40 hours per year pursuant to the resolution (No. 7) plaintiff brought suit against the Board alleging the resolution was improperly applied to her, and that the Board was not empowered to enact such a resolution. Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought damages of $121.33 representing her July, 1977, claim for compensation for 43 1/3 hours at the rate of.$2.80 per hour; and $5,832.79 representing lost compensation, based upon average monthly earnings of $228.80.
The trial court concluded the Board's decision to deny plaintiff compensation in excess of 40 hours per year was the result of the application of the resolution and was quasi-judicial in nature. The court also concluded procedural due process was satisfied because plaintiff appeared personally before the Board concerning the latter's action. Upon the basis of these conclusions, the trial court ruled that, as K.S.A. 19-223 provides the exclusive method by which a district court may review a judicial or quasi-judicial decision of a board of county commissioners, and since plaintiff had failed to appeal within the time prescribed by that statute, the court was without jurisdiction to review the action of the Board.
Initially, plaintiff argues the act of rejecting her claim for compensation, as set forth in findings 5, 6, and 7, was not quasi-judicial. We agree.
In Brelsford & Gifford Co. v. Smith County Comm'rs, 139 Kan. 339, 31 P.2d 25 (1934), it was held the denial of a claim against a county by the board of county commissioners is not a quasi-judicial function. The following portion of Comm'rs of Leavenworth Co. v. Brewer, 9 Kan. 307, 319 (1872), restated in Brelsford, set the matter straight:
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodard v. Bd. of County Com'Rs of Jefferson
...but was inapplicable to appeals from a legislative-type decision by a board of county commissioners); Concannon v. Board of Linn County Comm'rs, 6 Kan.App.2d 20, 21, 626 P.2d 798 (1981) (K.S.A. 19-223 provides the exclusive method by which a district court may review a judicial or quasi-jud......
-
Dutoit v. Board of County Com'rs of Johnson County, 5 and B
...a district court may review a judicial or quasi-judicial decision of a board of county commissioners. Concannon v. Board of Linn County Comm'rs, 6 Kan.App.2d 20, 21, 626 P.2d 798 (1981). 2. The extent to which property has received special benefits from a public improvement is a question of......
-
United Hosp. v. D'Annunzio
...F.2d 616 (2d Cir.1936); Enterprise Publishing Co. v. Harlan County, 310 S.W.2d 551 (Ky.Ct.App.1958); Concannon v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Linn County, 6 Kan.App.2d 20, 626 P.2d 798 (1981). See also 56 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 829 (1971); 17 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations,......
-
Weber v. Board of Com'Rs of Marshall County
...action. See Brelsford & Gifford Co. v. Smith County Comm'rs, 139 Kan. 339, 341-42, 31 P.2d 25 (1934); Concannon v. Board of Linn County Comm'rs, 6 Kan.App.2d 20, 626 P.2d 798, rev. denied, 229 Kan. 669 A court may review a board's administrative actions if they are illegal, as alleged here.......