Printable Format60-1202. Jurisdiction and grounds. Such action may be brought in the supreme court or in the district court in the following cases:
(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, or shall claim any franchise within this state, or any office in any corporation created by authority of this state.
(2) Whenever any public officer shall have done or suffered any act which by the provisions of law shall work a forfeiture of his or her office.
(3) When any association or number of persons shall act within this state as a corporation, without being legally incorporated.
(4) When any corporation does or omits acts which amount to a surrender or a forfeiture of its rights and privileges as a corporation, or when any corporation abuses its power or exercises powers not conferred by law.
(5) For any other cause for which a remedy might have been heretofore obtained by writ of quo warranto at common law.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1202; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 653; L. 1871, ch. 116, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 680; R.S. 1923, 60-1602.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The New Mandamus—State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives," Henry E. Couchman, Jr., 33 K.L.R. 733, 735, 737 (1985).
"Waiting for Judgment Day: Negotiating the Interlocutory Appeal in 8 Easy Lessons," Jonathan Paretsky, 78 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 30 (2009).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Resignation by county officers; acceptance and withdrawal. 90-1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-1602 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Private individual cannot maintain action attacking city annexation. Babcock v. City of Kansas City, 197 Kan. 610, 615, 419 P.2d 882.
2. Remedy hereunder does not permit court to question reasonableness of annexation ordinance. Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., 214 Kan. 408, 414, 520 P.2d 1230.
3. Action nature of quo warranto; removal by trial court of defendants from office, proper. State, ex rel., v. Cahill, 222 Kan. 570, 575, 567 P.2d 1329.
4. Removal from office of county treasurer under subsection (2) affirmed; willful misconduct in office. State ex rel. Miller v. Richardson, 229 Kan. 234, 235, 623 P.2d 1317.
5. Action filed pursuant hereto by attorney general for writ of quo warranto to prevent utilization of K.S.A. 79-331 and challenging constitutionality thereof. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 747, 748, 641 P.2d 1011 (1982).
6. Action in quo warranto filed pursuant hereto challenging constitutionality of K.S.A. 79-343; supreme court may transfer action to district court or dismiss same. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 Kan. 759, 770, 641 P.2d 1020 (1982).
7. Original action in quo warranto in proper case is appropriate to question constitutionality of statute. State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45, 52, 687 P.2d 622 (1984).
8. Proceeding in quo warranto by State ex rel. Attorney General appropriate against person allegedly engaged in unauthorized practice of law. State ex rel. Stephan v. Williams, 246 Kan. 681, 686, 793 P.2d 234 (1990).