Solomon v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 114,573.,114,573. |
| Citation | 364 P.3d 536 |
| Parties | Larry T. SOLOMON, Chief Judge, 30th Judicial District of the State of Kansas, Appellee, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Stephen R. McAllister, solicitor general, argued the cause, and Jeffrey A. Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, and Dwight R. Carswell, assistant solicitor general, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Pedro L. Irigonegaray, of Irigonegaray & Associates, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Elizabeth R. Herbert, of the same office, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
Steven C. Day, of Woodard, Hernandez, Roth & Day, LLC, of Wichita, and Amy S. Lemley, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Wichita, were on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas State Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Karen Michelle Donnelly of Copilevitz & Canter, LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, Stephen Douglas Bonney, of ACLU Foundation of Kansas, of Kansas City, Missouri, and Micheline Z. Burger, of Longmont, Colorado, were on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Kansas.
In 1861, the people of the new State of Kansas adopted a constitution that assigned judicial power to a supreme court and to various lower courts:
"The judicial power of the State shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as may be provided by law; and all courts of record shall have a seal, to be used in the authentication of all process." Kan. Const. art. 3, § 1 (1861).
This multi-tiered system vested judicial power in both the Supreme Court and district courts, and the legislature provided rules for the administration of those courts. For example, the General Statutes of Kansas, 1949, provided that seniority on the bench was the criterion for designating a "presiding judge" in larger judicial districts. G.S.1949, 20–502, 20–602. The presiding judge had the authority to make "reasonable and uniform rules" for assigning actions and practice, for directing business, and for hearing motions, as long as those rules were not inconsistent with the code of civil procedure. G.S.1949, 20–502.
In 1965, the Kansas Legislature passed the Judicial Department Reform Act, K.S.A.1965 Supp. 20–318 et seq. The Kansas Supreme Court adopted rules implementing the Act. See Report of the Judicial Advisory Committee, 13 Washburn L.J. 271, 366 (May 1974). In 1966, the Kansas Supreme Court promulgated a new rule governing the assignment of cases in multiple-judge districts, effective July 1, 1967. In relevant part, it read:
Rule 120(b), 197 Kan. lxxiv (1966).
In 1968, the Kansas Legislature codified Rule 120(b) by enacting K.S.A.1968 Supp. 20–329, which read:
"In every judicial district having more than one division, the supreme court may designate an administrative judge who shall have general control over the assignment of cases within said district court subject to supervision by the supreme court."
As we explained in Behrmann v. Public Employees Relations Board, 225 Kan. 435, 438–42, 591 P.2d 173 (1979), in 1968, the legislature established a citizen's committee to study and propose amendments to the constitution. L.1968, ch. 265. In February 1969, that committee submitted its 124–page report to the legislature. Among the significant recommended changes in Article 3 was the creation of "a unified court with overall administrative and procedural rule-making powers in the supreme court branch thereof." Report of the Citizens' Committee on Constitutional Revision, p. 43 (February 1969); see Behrmann, 225 Kan. at 440, 591 P.2d 173.
In 1972, the voters of the state of Kansas, in keeping with the recommendations of the Citizens' Committee, ratified an amendment to Article 3, § 1, of the constitution, which now reads:
" (Emphasis added.)
In 1973, a Judicial Study Advisory Committee was formed pursuant to legislative authorization contained in Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 (1973 Session). Its purpose was to assist in a survey and study of the Kansas court system and to make recommendations to the judiciary and the legislature. See 13 Washburn L.J. at 273.
Among the ills that the Advisory Committee found in need of a cure was "fragmentation of judicial power," resulting in part in the "unnecessary variations in the practices and procedures of individual local courts. " (Emphasis in the original.) 13 Washburn L.J. at 294. "Sound judicial administration requires clear lines of responsibility and authority as well as the resources adequate to ensure effective implementation of administrative policy." (Emphasis added.) 13 Washburn L.J. at 360. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee determined that "appointment procedures and trial court management" lay among the Supreme Court's policy-making responsibilities under the new, unified court structure. 13 Washburn L.J. at 362. This meant that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would exercise "general supervision over all matters" subject to the Supreme Court's policy-making power, including financial affairs of the courts and "the assignment of judges at all levels. " (Emphasis added.) 13 Washburn L.J. at 364. In keeping with this mission, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Supreme Court "appoint a district judge to be the administrative judge of the unified district court in each judicial district." 13 Washburn L.J. at 366.
In 1976, the Supreme Court struck what had been Rule 120 and adopted a new Rule 107, which read in relevant part:
220 Kan. lvii (1976).
This rule has since been modified and, effective July 1, 2012, Rule 107 now states in relevant part:
K.S.A. 20–329 also has been modified over time to harmonize it with Rule 107. In 1999, it was amended to read:
L.1999, ch. 57, sec. 17.
During the 2014 legislative session, the Kansas Legislature passed Senate Substitute for House Bill No. 2338. Section 11 of H.B. 2338 amended K.S.A. 20–329, which now reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Pistotnik
... ... Brad responded by moving a fourth time to enforce the protective order. Brad also moved for a show cause order requiring Brave to state why he should not be held in contempt for having violated the district court's orders. The district court issued the show cause order, held a ... Sierra Club v. Moser , 298 Kan. 22, 33, 310 P.3d 360 (2013)." Solomon v. State , 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015). A party who does not claim to have been prejudiced by a protective order or any ruling based on ... ...
-
Baker v. Hayden
... ... He named various Johnson County officials as defendants alleging federal and state law violations. Baker also named the records custodian as a defendant in an official capacity as records custodian for the Tenth Judicial District ... fixed and final shape rather than remaining 490 P.3d 1176 nebulous and contingent; and (4) the issue cannot present a political question." Solomon v. State , 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015). Standing requires a party to satisfy both statutory and "traditional or common-law standing" ... ...
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Johnson Cnty. v. Jordan
... ... The opinion of the court was delivered by BILES, J.: 303 Kan. 845 This is an original action in mandamus challenging a unique aspect of the State's statutory methodology for valuing real property for ad valorem taxation purposes. It is brought by 21 boards of county commissioners against Nick ... Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015). To demonstrate a "cognizable injury," we said the person bringing the claim must show a personal ... ...
-
State v. Roat
... ... Kansas Department of Revenue , 310 Kan. 454, 460, 447 P.3d 959 (2019) (one of four elements of case-or-controversy requirement is that issue not be moot); State v. Cheever , 306 Kan. 760, 786, 402 P.3d 1126, cert. denied U.S. , 138 S. Ct. 560, 199 L.Ed.2d 441 (2017) (same); Solomon v. State , 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015) (same); Gannon v. State , 298 Kan. 1107, 1119, 319 P.3d 1196 (2014) (same). Since 2008, this court has included mootness in this list of four considerations when setting out the law before analyzing whether the parties have standing, whether an ... ...
-
The Kansas Judicial Review Act: a Road Map
...(emphasis added). [49] Sometimes referred to as the "case or controversy" requirement. See, e.g., Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015). [50] "The judicial power of this state shall be vested exclusively in one court of justice, which shall be divided into one supreme cou......
-
The Kansas Judicial Review Act: a Road Map
...(emphasis added). [49] Sometimes referred to as the "case or controversy" requirement. See, e.g., Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512, 521, 364 P.3d 536 (2015). [50] "The judicial power of this state shall be vested exclusively in one court of justice, which shall be divided into one supreme cou......
-
SOMETHING THERE IS THAT DOESN'T LOVE A WALL.
...available."). (24.) 672 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1983) (25.) Id. at 18-19. (26.) Id. at 19. (27.) Id. at 3. (28.) Id. at 23. (29.) Solomon v. State, 364 P.3d 536, 553 (Kan. (30.) Id. at 556 (Stegall, J., concurring). (31.) Id. (Stegall, J., concurring) (quoting Association of American Railroads, 575 U.......