Miami County Board of Commissioners v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc.

56 Citing cases

  1. State v. BNSF Ry. Co.

    56 Kan. App. 2d 503 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that Kansas's anti-blocking statute is preempted by the ICCTA because it "infringes on the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB to regulate the rail transportation system in the United States"

    Consequently, "the Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law." Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc ., 292 Kan. 285, 294, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). Whether federal preemption exists and the scope of the preemption are questions of congressional intent.

  2. Miller v. Johnson

    295 Kan. 636 (Kan. 2012)   Cited 98 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding mandatory minimum primary and excess liability coverage for medical malpractice adequate quid pro quo for cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice lawsuit

    Section 1 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provide virtually the same protections. Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 315, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). An equal protection analysis has three steps.

  3. Downtown Bar & Grill, LLC v. State

    273 P.3d 709 (Kan. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Explaining that if a nonfundamental right is at issue, the substantive due process rational basis test, as opposed to strict scrutiny, applies

    Discussion We recently reiterated our stair-step analysis of an equal protection claim in Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 315–16, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011): “The first step of an equal protection analysis is to determine the nature of the legislative classifications and whether the classifications result in arguably indistinguishable classes of individuals being treated differently....

  4. Wichita Terminal Ass'n v. F.Y.G. Invs., Inc.

    48 Kan. App. 2d 1071 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    “Simply put, the Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law.” Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 294, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). In determining whether federal preemption is applicable in a given case, we must look to “the language of the pre-emption statute and the ‘statutory framework’ surrounding it.”

  5. Hall v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue

    298 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013)

    Our Supreme Court recently reiterated the stair-step analysis of an equal protection claim. See Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 315–16, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). The stair-step analysis contained in Kanza Rail is as follows:

  6. State v. Garcia

    306 Kan. 1113 (Kan. 2017)   Cited 10 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Garcia, a false SSN an employee provided was used on an I–9 form (an employment eligibility form authorized by the IRCA) to verify his identity and employment authorization, and this information was subsequently transferred to a W–4 tax form. 401 P.3d at 590.

    tate's ability to legislate or apply its own constitutional or common law. "There is no doubt that Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision." Arizona , 567 U.S. at 399, 132 S.Ct. 2492 ; see also Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Cal. , 569 U.S. 641, 133 S.Ct. 2096, 186 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013) (facial, express challenge: certain provisions of concession agreements in clean air action plan expressly preempted by Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which preempts a state "law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law"); Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 936, 194 L.Ed.2d 20 (2016) (as-applied, express challenge: Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA] preempts Vermont statute establishing health care database for use in Vermont, by Vermont residents); Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc. , 292 Kan. 285, 295, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011) (facial, express challenge: explicit statutory language from Congress compared to Kansas Recreational Trails Act). Implied preemption arises when a federal statute's "structure and purpose" demonstrate that state law can have no application.

  7. Villa v. Kan. Health Policy Auth.

    291 P.3d 1056 (Kan. 2013)   Cited 36 times
    Noting that this subchapter deals with disclosure of information on ownership and control

    First, a court must determine the nature of the statutory classifications and examine whether these classifications result in disparate treatment of arguably indistinguishable classes of individuals. Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 315, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). If so, the Equal Protection Clause is implicated.

  8. Nash v. Blatchford

    56 Kan. App. 2d 592 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3403 did not immunize defendant because the case did "not involve another health care provider's potential vicarious liability for [defendant's] alleged negligence" but, instead, plaintiff had "sued [defendant] for his acts or omissions while performing surgery or when providing [plaintiff's] care and treatment," and the statute "does not prohibit a claim against one health care provider for his or her negligent acts"

    [Citations omitted.]" Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc. , 292 Kan. 285, 315-16, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). Nash makes a three-pronged argument: (1) K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 12-105b(d) treats medical malpractice victims of municipally employed physicians different than victims of nonmunicipally employed physicians; (2) the rational basis standard applies to his equal protection challenge; and (3) K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 12-105b(d) lacks any rational basis in law because requiring notice of a claim to a municipal hospital in which it cannot be held vicariously liable furthers no legitimate governmental interest.

  9. In re Wright

    350 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)

    Both the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights § 1 provide equal protection of the laws. Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail–Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285, 315, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). When a statute's constitutionality is challenged on this basis, however, an appellate court must presume the statute's constitutionality and construe it as constitutional if at all possible. Additionally, because the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, our Kansas appellate courts exercise unlimited review of this issue.

  10. Bicknell v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue

    509 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2022)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the taxpayer bore the burden to prove a change in domicile, both before the Board of Tax Appeals and before the district court

    ‘In evaluating the evidence to support the district court's factual findings, an appellate court does not weigh conflicting evidence, evaluate witnesses’ credibility, or redetermine questions of fact.’ " Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc. , 292 Kan. 285, 325, 255 P.3d 1186 (2011). We cannot determine whether the evidence is legal and relevant, rising to the level of substantial competent evidence, in a vacuum.