Sedlak v. Dick, 70,792
Decision Date | 13 January 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 70,792,70,792 |
Citation | 256 Kan. 779,887 P.2d 1119 |
Parties | Michael SEDLAK, Richard D. Woodworth, and John Ratliff, Petitioners, v. Joe DICK, Secretary of Human Resources, and George Gomez, Director of Workers Compensation, Respondents. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The legislative power of this state is vested in the legislature, and the delegation of such power to a private group or association is constitutionally impermissible.
2. Where a legislative act expressly repealing an existing statute and providing a substitute therefor is invalid, the repealing clause is also invalid unless it appears that the legislature would have passed the repealing clause even if it had not provided a substitute for the statute repealed.
3. The unconstitutional part of a legislative act may be severed from the remaining part or parts of the act if it is separate and independent, but not where they are so related that the latter is a condition of, a compensation for, or an inducement to, the former, or where it is clear the legislature would not have enacted one but for the other.
4. In an original action in mandamus and quo warranto challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of K.S.A. 44-555b and K.S.A. 44-556, the record is examined and it is held: (1) K.S.A. 44-555b(e) and (f), which vest in the Kansas AFL-CIO and Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry the power to select members of the Workers Compensation Board, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private association and render the statute invalid; (2) K.S.A. 44-551 and K.S.A. 44-556 are not severable from K.S.A. 44-555b and are therefore also invalid; and (3) the attempted repeal of K.S.A.1992 Supp. 44-551 and K.S.A.1992 Supp. 44-556 in L.1993, ch. 286, § 77 is invalid, and those statutes are still in full force and effect as they existed prior to the attempted amendment and repeal.
Patrick R. Nichols, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioners.
William R. Sampson and David J. Waxse, of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, P.C., Overland Park, argued the cause, and John T. Bullock, of the same firm, was with them on the brief for respondents.
John M. Ostrowski, of McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, P.A., Topeka, and Bruce
Alan Brumley, of the same firm, were on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas AFL-CIO.
Jeffrey A. Chanay, of Entz & Chanay, Topeka, Kip A. Kubin, of Payne & Jones, Overland Park, and Keith C. Sevedge, Kansas City, were on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Vaughn Burkholder, of Foulston & Siefkin, Wichita, and Stephen M. Kerwick, of the same firm, were on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas Ass'n of Defense Counsel.
In this original action, petitioners Michael Sedlak, Richard D. Woodworth, and John Ratliff challenge the constitutionality of two provisions of the Workers Compensation Act as revised in 1993, K.S.A. 44-555b and K.S.A. 44-556. These sections establish the Workers Compensation Board (Board), provide for Board members to be selected by one representative of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and one representative of the Kansas AFL-CIO, and subject Board actions to review by the Court of Appeals on questions of law only. Petitioners' initial filing in this court was called "Original Petition for Relief in Quo Warranto." In their brief, petitioners state that their action is "an original action in mandamus/quo warranto."
The pertinent allegations of the petition are:
p 2:
p 3: "Richard D. Woodworth, the other Plaintiff, received a Preliminary Order for compensation from Administrative Law Judge Floyd V. Palmer on October 18, 1993 and was subsequently notified November 5, 1993 that the matter would be heard by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board."
p 4: "[D]efendants are Joe Dick, lawfully appointed Secretary of Human Resources and George Gomez, Director of Workers' Compensation; ... the Workers' Compensation Board; Gary Peterson, Don Ramsay, Duncan Whittier, Gary Korte and Kenton Wirth."
p 5:
p 6: "Relief in the form of Quo Warranto, injunction or mandamus is a proper remedy ... to question the constitutionality of statutes...."
p 12: "Most Kansas citizens are not members of the Kansas AFL-CIO or the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry."
p 23:
p 24:
p 25:
p 26: "Since Woodworth cannot appeal the decision of the Board (See Senate Bill 307, Section 58) he has no other remedy at law."
On June 20, 1994, this court granted petitioners' motion to name an additional petitioner, John Ratliff. In support of his being added, the petitioners stated:
Respondents admit to pp 3, 4, 6, and part of p 12 of the petition and agree that Woodworth has standing, this action should be resolved promptly, this court has original jurisdiction, and the material facts are not in dispute. Respondents further respond that as to Michael Sedlak, the Board increased his award, which he accepted and his employer agreed to pay, resulting in Sedlak's claim being moot.
The parties stipulated to the "admissibility" of documents attached to petitioners' brief, respondents' memorandum in support of response to the petition, and the joint stipulation. They also stipulated to the following facts:
....
Statistical information supplied for the NFIB indicates that its members are small...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission, S113466 (CA 6/23/2005), S113466
...325; Ingard v. Barker (Idaho 1915) 147 P. 293, 295; Betts v. Calumet Park (Ill. 1960) 170 N.E.2d 563, 563-564; Sedlak v. Dick (Kan. 1995) 887 P.2d 1119, 1126-1130; State Through Bd. of Ethics v. Green (La. 1990) 566 So.2d 623, 624-626; Buchholtz v. Hill (Md. 1940) 13 A.2d 348, 351-352; Oren......
-
State v. Arnett
...See Gannon, 304 Kan. at 520, 372 P.3d 1181 (citing State ex rel. v. Hines , 163 Kan. 300, 322, 182 P.2d 865 [(1947)] ; Sedlak v. Dick , 256 Kan. 779, 803-04, 887 P.2d 1119 [(1995)] ; Thompson v. KFB Ins. Co. , 252 Kan. 1010, 1023, 850 P.2d 773 [(1993)] ; and Boyer v. Ferguson , 192 Kan. 607......
-
Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen
...306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441 (1939), state courts have frequently invalidated such provisions. See, e.g., Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779, 887 P.2d 1119, 1134-35 (1995) (striking down statute allowing committee of union and business representatives to select Workers' Compensation Boa......
-
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. Apache County, 1
...left a "hiatus in the law" by repeal of the former statute. 1A Sutherland, supra, § 23.24 at 403-04. See, e.g., Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779, 887 P.2d 1119, 1136-37 (1995) (if legislature had not passed the invalid amendment, it would not have independently repealed the former law; thus, fo......
-
Separation of Powers: Is There a Cause for Concern?
...Schneider v. Bennett, 219 Kan. 285, 547 P.2d 786 (1976); Parcell v. State of Kansas, 228 Kan. 794, 620 P.2d 834 (1980); Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779, 887 P.2d 1119 (1995). [14] K.S.A. 46-2801 et seq. [15] See, e.g., State ex rel. Morrison v. Sebelius, 285 Kan. 875, 179 P.3d 366 (2008). [16]......
-
Separation of Powers: Is There a Cause for Concern?
...Schneider v. Bennett, 219 Kan. 285, 547 P.2d 786 (1976); Parcell v. State of Kansas, 228 Kan. 794, 620 P. 2d 834 (1980); Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779, 887 P.2d 1119 (1995). [14] K.S.A. 46-2801 et seq. [15] See, e.g., State ex rel. Morrison v. Sebelius, 285 Kan. 875, 179 P. 3d 366 (2008). [1......