Home >> Statutes >> Back

Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

60-1202. 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.


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 K. 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 K. 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 K. 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 K. 234, 235, 623 P.2d 1317.

5. Action filed pursuant hereto by attorney general for writ of quo warranto to prevent utilization of 79-331 and challenging constitutionality thereof. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 K. 747, 748, 641 P.2d 1011 (1982).

6. Action in quo warranto filed pursuant hereto challenging constitutionality of 79-343; supreme court may transfer action to district court or dismiss same. State ex rel. Stephan v. Martin, 230 K. 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 K. 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 K. 681, 686, 793 P.2d 234 (1990).

 | Next

  A Summary of Special Sessions in Kansas
  Bill Brief for Senate Bill No. 1
  Bill Brief for House Bill No. 2001

  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2023 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

Session Laws

Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department