Martin v. Walton, No. 30

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; WHITTAKER; DOUGLAS
Citation7 L.Ed.2d 5,82 S.Ct. 1,368 U.S. 25
PartiesKeith MARTIN, Appellant, v. Herbert WALTON, as Probate Judge of Johnson County, Kansas
Docket NumberNo. 30
Decision Date06 November 1961

368 U.S. 25
82 S.Ct. 1
7 L.Ed.2d 5
Keith MARTIN, Appellant,

v.

Herbert WALTON, as Probate Judge of Johnson County, Kansas.

No. 30.
Argued Oct. 17, 1961.
Decided Nov. 6, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1961.

See 368 U.S. 945, 82 S.Ct. 376.

Howard E. Payne, Olathe, Kan., for appellant.

J. Donald Lysaught, Kansas City, Kan., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Upon plenary consideration, we are satisfied that, both on their face and as applied to appellant, Kan.Gen.Stat., 1949, § 7—104, and amended Kan.Sup.Ct. Rules 41 and 54 promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, acting within its competence under state law, are not beyond the allowable range of

Page 26

state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Dent v. State of West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623; Graves v. State of Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 47 S.Ct. 122, 71 L.Ed. 331; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796; Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 353 U.S. 919, 77 S.Ct. 679, 1 L.Ed.2d 718; Kovrak v. Ginsburg, 358 U.S. 52, 79 S.Ct. 95, 3 L.Ed.2d 46. We cannot disregard the reasons given by the Kansas Supreme Court for the Rules in question. 187 Kan. 473, 357 P.2d 782. Nor does the fact that the Rules may result in 'incidental individual inequality' make them offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment. Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 U.S. 319, 324, 57 S.Ct. 483, 485, 81 L.Ed. 674.

Appeal dismissed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurs in the result.

Mr. Justice WHITTAKER took no part in the disposition of this case.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.

If this were a case where an attorney, though a member of the Kansas Bar, practiced law only in Missouri, the reasons for Rules 41 and 54* as declared by the Kansas Supreme Court, would be adequate to sustain them. For

Page 27

we are told by that court that they were designed 'to provide litigants in (Kansas) tribunals with the service of a resident attorney familiar with local rules, procedure and practice and upon whom service may be had in all matters connected with actions or proceedings proper to be served upon an attorney of record.' 187 Kan. 473, 485, 357 P.2d 782, 791.

But the facts assumed are not the facts of this case. The facts alleged in the petition for writ of mandamus, which are assumed to be true by the motion to quash, show the following: Petitioner, since 1948, has continuously maintained law offices and had a general practice of law both in Kansas City, Missouri, and in Mission, Kansas, the latter being a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri. Petitioner's home is Mission, Kansas. He is City Attorney for Mission and a member of the Board of Tax Appeals of Kansas. Many of his clients live in one State and work in the other. Their problems involve the laws and procedures of both States. He consults with as many clients in his Kansas office or home as in his Missouri office. About one-half of his earned income is derived from his Kansas practice, a large portion of which consists of practice in the probate court. To use the words of the Kansas Supreme Court, quoted above, petitioner is a 'resident attorney familiar with local rules, procedure and practice and upon whom service may be had in all matters.'

Four other factors were mentioned by the Kansas Supreme Court in sustaining these Rules:

1. Kansas courts and commissions 'encountered difficulty in procuring...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Griswold v. State of Connecticut, No. 496
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1965
    ...for its anti-use statute. Cf. Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 530, 79 S.Ct. 437, 442, 3 L.Ed.2d 480; Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 28, 82 S.Ct. 1, 3, 7 L.Ed.2d 5 (Douglas, J., dissenting). There is no serious contention that Connecticut thinks the use of artificial or extern......
  • National Association For Advancement of Colored People v. Button, No. 5
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1963
    ...U.S. 117, 123 124, 81 S.Ct. 954, 958, 6 L.Ed.2d 156; Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 81 S.Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105; Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d 5. The regulation before us has its origins in the long-standing common-law prohibitions of champerty, barratry, and m......
  • Ray v. State Highway Commission, No. 44137
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 22, 1966
    ...31 L.Ed. 205; Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598, 118 P. 80, 37 L.R.A.N.S., 877; Martin v. Davis, 187 Kan. 473, 484, 357 P.2d 782, app. dis. 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d The landmark case of Mugler versus Kansas clearly outlines the distinction between eminent domain and the police power.......
  • Manzanares v. Bell, No. 47412
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 7, 1974
    ...supra; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 408 P.2d 877; Martin v. Davis, 187 Kan. 473, 357 P.2d 782, app. dismissed, 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d 5; Board of County Comm'rs v. Robb, 166 Kan. 122, 199 P.2d 530.) '. . . To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Griswold v. State of Connecticut, No. 496
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1965
    ...for its anti-use statute. Cf. Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 530, 79 S.Ct. 437, 442, 3 L.Ed.2d 480; Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 28, 82 S.Ct. 1, 3, 7 L.Ed.2d 5 (Douglas, J., dissenting). There is no serious contention that Connecticut thinks the use of artificial or extern......
  • National Association For Advancement of Colored People v. Button, No. 5
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1963
    ...U.S. 117, 123 124, 81 S.Ct. 954, 958, 6 L.Ed.2d 156; Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 81 S.Ct. 997, 6 L.Ed.2d 105; Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d 5. The regulation before us has its origins in the long-standing common-law prohibitions of champerty, barratry, and m......
  • Ray v. State Highway Commission, No. 44137
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 22, 1966
    ...31 L.Ed. 205; Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598, 118 P. 80, 37 L.R.A.N.S., 877; Martin v. Davis, 187 Kan. 473, 484, 357 P.2d 782, app. dis. 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d The landmark case of Mugler versus Kansas clearly outlines the distinction between eminent domain and the police power.......
  • Manzanares v. Bell, No. 47412
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 7, 1974
    ...supra; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 408 P.2d 877; Martin v. Davis, 187 Kan. 473, 357 P.2d 782, app. dismissed, 368 U.S. 25, 82 S.Ct. 1, 7 L.Ed.2d 5; Board of County Comm'rs v. Robb, 166 Kan. 122, 199 P.2d 530.) '. . . To be able to find fault with a law is not to demonst......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT