Unified School Dist. No. 335, Jackson County v. State Bd. of Ed., 45842

• Decision Date: 12 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. 45842,45842
• Citation: 206 Kan. 229,478 P.2d 201
• Parties: The UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 335, JACKSON COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant, v. The STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION of Kansas and its Legal Predecessor, Murie M. Hayden, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kansas, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 201

478 P.2d 201

206 Kan. 229

The UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 335, JACKSON COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant, v. The STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION of Kansas and its Legal

Predecessor, Murie M. Hayden, the State

Superintendent of Public Instruction of

Kansas, et al., Appellees.

No. 45842.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 12, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a school district may sue or be sued, it has no authority to maintain an action questioning the boundaries or the validity of the organization of another school district such an action can only be brought in the name of the state by its duly authorized officers.

2. A unified school district cannot maintain an action challenging the validity of orders made by the state superintendent of public instruction transferring territory from the plaintiff district to other unified school districts.

John E. Bohannon, Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the brief of appellant.

Edward Collister, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., and Gary L. Rohrer, Asst. Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief for appellees.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

This action was instituted by Unified School District No. 335 to enjoin the enforcement of certain orders made by the state superintendent of public instruction transferring portions of plaintiff's territory to three other unified school districts. Plaintiff's right to maintain the action was successfully challenged in the lower court and constitutes the sole issue for determination in this appeal.

The legislature, with its plenary power over the establishment, alteration, and disorganization of school districts, delegated to the state superintendent the authority to transfer territory from one unified district to another after the filing of a petition and a hearing thereon, all in accordance with K.S.A.1967 Supp. 72-6758 (now K.S.A.1970 Supp. 72-7108). We gather from the record that the orders of the state superintendent now being questioned came about as a result of petitions filed in April 1968 by the three defendant unified districts requesting that certain territory lying within the plaintiff district be transferred to them.

In its petition filed herein, plaintiff challenges the legality of the transfer orders on various grounds and alleges the actions of the state superintendent were arbitrary, capricious, and amounted to constructive fraud. Plaintiff asks that the orders be declared illegal and void, and that the transfer of any territory under the purported orders be enjoined. The petition, in effect, constitutes an attack on the validity of the reorganization of defendant unified districts as a result of the addition of territory from the plaintiff district.

Under the settled law of this jurisdiction, an action challenging the legality of the organization or reorganization of a municipal corporation can only be maintained by the state acting through its proper officers. Our many decisions in which we have steadfastly adhered to the rule may be found in DeForest v. Herbert, 204 Kan. 516, 464 P.2d 265; Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610, 419 P.2d 882; Bishop v. Shawnee & Mission Tps. Turkey Creek Main Sewer District No. 1, 184 Kan. 376, 336 P.2d 815, and an extended discussion of the subject is deemed unwarranted here.

This court has never permitted a private individual to bring an action attacking the legality of the organization of a municipality or a quasi-municipal...