Supreme Court of Kansas

“ In case the parties do not obey the orders the board is given authority to apply to the Supreme Court of Kansas to compel compliance, and the Supreme Court is authorized to review the orders upon the evidence already heard, and such other new evidence as that court shall permit, and enter and enforce a proper judgment. ”

“ The coverage of the Kansas statute is a matter solely for the determination of Kansas. Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315 U.S. 740, 747, 62 S.Ct. 820, 824, 86 L.Ed. 1154; United States v. Texas, 314 U.S. 480, 487, 62 S.Ct. 350, 353, 86 L.Ed. 356. In this case evidence was introduced as to the deficiencies in certain particulars of petitioners' compounds as compared with whole milk products. The findings of the commissioner who acted for the Supreme Court of Kansas appear in State v. ”

“ It therefore came within the first clause of the secton quoted, and if the same rule governs proceedings under that clause that obtains in respect of the second clause, the judgment of the supreme court of Kansas must be affirmed. ”

“ Johnston, 142 U.S. 73, 78, 12 S.C.t. 141, 35 L. Ed. 941; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Company, 243 U.S. 157, 164, 37 S.C.t. 318, 61 L. Ed. 644.
It seems clear that the Supreme Court of Kansas rested its judgment, affirming the action of the trial court, upon a nonfederal ground broad enough to sustain it. ”

“ In that case the Kansas Supreme Court held that the statutory provisions apportioning seats in both houses of the Kansas Legislature were constitutionally invalid, but afforded the legislature a further opportunity to enact a constitutionally valid plan prior to the 1964 primary and general elections. ”

“ It certainly cannot be made the means of obtaining a new trial.
It may, however, be said that the supreme court expressed its views of the validity of the Kansas statute under the commerce clause of the Constitution, and thereby ruled on the contention of plaintiff in error, based on that clause. We do not so understand the opinion of the court. It in no way, nor to any extent, modified its view that the contention was not available to plaintiff in error, or intimated that such view was not the basis of its decision. ”

“ In one of the cases reported under the name of The Kansas Indians (1867) 5 Wall. 737, Blue Jacket v. Johnson County Comrs. 18 L. ed. 667, this court, reversing the judgment of the supreme court of Kansas in Blue Jacket v. ”

“ While it was asserted that the law of Congress was supreme, and that judges and courts in every state were bound thereby, and that therefore the statute granting immunity would probably operate in the state as well as in the Federal courts, yet still, and aside from that view, it was said that while there might be a bare possibility that a witness might be subjected to the criminal laws of some other sovereignty, it was not a real and probable danger, but was so improbable that it needed not to be taken into account. ”

“ Our power to do so is explicitly challenged by the United States as amicus curiae, but would in any event have to be faced. See Mansfield C. & L.M. Ry. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511, 28 L.Ed. 462. To whom and for what causes the courts of Kansas are open are matters for Kansas to determine. [3] But Kansas can not define the contours of the authority of the federal courts, and more particularly of this Court. It is our ultimate responsibility to determine who may invoke our judgment and under what circumstances. ”

“ 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. ”

“ Speaking generally, it may be observed that the judicial power of a nation extends to all controversies justiciable in their nature, and the parties to which or the property involved in which may be reached by judicial process, and, when the judicial power of the United States was vested in the Supreme and other courts, all the judicial power which the nation was capable of exercising was vested in those tribunals ”

“ The opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri is not unequivocal. It could hardly, however, have assumed the law of Colorado to be that reviver proceedings create a new judgment, for it chiefly relied upon a decision of its own according full recognition to Roche v. McDonald and other cases invoking the principle that the forum cannot look behind a judgment brought there for enforcement. ”

“ Describing Coleman, the Court wrote in Raines: “By a vote of 5–4, we held that [the 20 Kansas Senators who voted against ratification of a proposed federal constitutional amendment] had standing.” 521 U. S., at 822. For opinions recognizing the precedential weight of Coleman, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 208 (1962) ; United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4–5) . ↑ Curiously, Justice Scalia, dissenting on standing, berates the Court for “treading upon the powers of state legislatures.” Post. ”

“ As finally adopted, the Constitution omits all provisions for the Senate taking cognizance of disputes between the states, and leaves out the exception referred to in the jurisdiction granted to the Supreme Court. That carries with it a very direct recognition of the fact that to the Supreme Court is granted jurisdiction of all controversies between the states which are justiciable in their nature. ”

“ Kansas. 539 U.S. 955 (2003) Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner, State of California. 539 U.S. 955 (2003) In re Disbarment of Klimow 539 U.S. 956 (2003) Regan v. Governing Board of the Sonora Union High School District 539 U.S. 956 (2003) Standard v. United States 539 U.S. 956 (2003) Sims v. New Providence 539 U.S. 956 (2003) Jones v. California. ”

“ Kansas 236 U.S. 43 (1915) Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Company 236 U.S. 50 (1915) Yost v. Dallas County 236 U.S. 58 (1915) Reynolds v. Fewell 236 U.S. 68 (1914) Shellenbarger v. Fewell 236 U.S. 70 (1915) Lesser v. Gray 236 U.S. 75 (1915) Stearns v. Wood 236 U.S. 79 (1915) Burdick v. United States 236 U.S. 96 (1914) Curtin v. United States 236 U.S. 101 (1915) Board of County Commissioners of the City and County of Denver v. Home Savings Bank 236 U.S. 106 (1915) United States v. ”

“ It is the state of Kansas which invokes the action of this court, charging that, through the action of Colorado, a large portion of its territory is threatened with disaster. In this respect it is in no manner evading the provisions of the 11th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. It is not acting directly and solely for the benefit of any individual citizen to protect his riparian rights. Beyond its property rights it has an interest as a state in this large tract of land bordering on the Arkansas river. Its prosperity affects the general welfare of the state. ”

“ Kansas has a right to make such an abstract determination for itself. This Court, however, can decide only 'Cases' or 'Controversies.' U.S.C.onst., Art. III, § 2. It has no constitutional power to render advisory opinions. To assume that the Kansas courts construed these pleadings sub silentio as alleging monetary loss is to excogitate. A much more probable inference is that since the issue so controlling for this Court's jurisdiction was not raised in the pleadings, the Kansas court did not concern itself with it. ”

“ In other words, although the Text-book Company may have a valid contract with a citizen of Kansas, one directly arising out of and connected with its interstate business, the statute denies its right to invoke the authority of a Kansas court to enforce its provisions unless it does what we hold it was not, under the Constitution, bound to do ”

“ If under the control of Congress, from necessity there can be no divided authority. If they have outlived many things, they have not outlived the protection afforded by the Constitution, treaties, and laws of Congress. It may be that they cannot exist much longer as a distinct people in the presence of the civilization of Kansas ”

“ Even though it be conceded that all the facts necessary to give a right to recover were contained in the original petition, as this predicated the assertion of that right on the general law of master and servant, and not upon the exceptional rule established by the Kansas statute, it was a departure from law to law. The most common, if not the invariable, test of departure in law, as settled by the authorities referred to, is a change from the assertion of a cause of action under the common or general law to a reliance upon a statute giving a particular or exceptional right. ”

“ Has the state any power, through the legislature and the courts, or by any other means or instrumentalities, to dispose of or control property in the state belonging to non-resident owners out of the state, where such non-resident owners will not volun tarily surrender jurisdiction of their persons to the state, or to the courts of the state, and where the most urgent public policy and justice require that the state and its courts should assume jurisdiction over such property? Power of this kind has always been exercised, not only in Kansas, but in all the other states. ”

“ To open the law courts to such controversies is to have courts sit in judgment on the manifold disputes engendered by procedures for voting in legislative assemblies. If the doctrine of Ashby v. White vindicating the private rights of a voting citizen has not been doubted for over two hundred years, it is equally significant that for over two hundred years Ashby v. White has not been sought to be put to purposes like the present. In seeking redress here these Kansas senators have wholly misconceived the functions of this Court. ”

“ Whether the requirements are necessary to the purpose, or-to confine ourselves to that which in under review-whether rate regulation is necessary to the purpose, is a matter for legislative judgment, not judicial. Our function is only to determine the existence of power.
The bill attacks the statute of Kansas as discriminating against complainant because the statute excludes from its provisions farmers' mutual insurance companies, organized and doing business under the laws of the state and insuring only farm property. ”

“ Congress, possessing exclusive power over the amending process, cannot be bound by and is under no duty to accept the pronouncements upon that exclusive power by this Court or by the Kansas courts. Neither State nor Federal courts can review that power. Therefore, any judicial expression amounting to more than mere acknowledgment of exclusive Congressional power over the political process of amendment is a mere admonition to the Congress in the nature of an advisory opinion, given wholly without constitutional authority. ”