Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondents are 22 inmates of various prisons operated by ADOC. In Januarythey filed this class action "on behalf of all adult prisoners who are or will be incarcerated by the State of Arizona Department of Corrections," App. Following a 3 month bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of respondents, finding that "[p]risoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts that is adequate, effective and meaningful," F.
Opinion filed July 14, Griffith, Assistant Attorney, and Charles N. Henson, Assistant Attorney General, of Topeka, argued the cause and were on the briefs for appellant. Bruce Works, of Topeka, argued the cause, and George D. Wagstaff, City Attorney, and Patrick L. Connolly and William L.
The sole question presented is whether the city of Topeka, a municipal corporation, has authority to subject real property owned by the State Highway Commission to special assessment for public improvements. The city of Topeka created a Storm Sewer District which included within its boundaries certain real property owned by the State Highway Commission, an agency of the state of Kansas.
In an action brought by the Commission to enjoin the city from levying the special assessment, the district court denied an injunction and the Commission has appealed. The Commission contends that under Article 11, Section 9 of our Constitution providing that the state "may adopt, construct, reconstruct and maintain a state system of highways," and our statutes G.
Neosho County Comm'rs, Kan. It asserts that the action taken by the city was in fact action taken against the sovereign state of Kansas itself; that one of the attributes of sovereignty is the basic principle that the state and its agencies and their property are inherently vested with immunity from taxation because of their public nature; that although the doctrine is effective without any statute, G.
It cites and relies upon Commissioners of Franklin Co. City of Ottawa, 49 Kan. Board of Education, 92 Kan. Stafford County, Kan. City of Topeka, Kan.
While the word "tax" in its broad meaning includes general taxes and special assessments, and in a general sense a tax is an assessment, and an assessment is a tax, yet this court has consistently held that under Article 11 of our Constitution, taxes and assessments technically considered, are different things.
In addition to the foregoing authorities see Hines and others v. City of Leavenworth and others, 3 Kan.
City of Ottawa, supra; Osborne County v. City of Osborne, Kan. City of Hutchinson, Kan. City of Fort Scott, Kan.
City of Holyrood, Kan. A special assessment is in the nature of a tax levied upon property according to the benefits conferred on the property.
The whole theory of a special assessment is based upon the doctrine that the property against which it is levied derives some special benefit from the improvement; that while the property is made to bear the cost of the improvement, it or its owner suffers no pecuniary loss thereby since the property is increased in value by an amount at least equal to the sum it is required to pay.
The power of cities to make property liable for special improvements is found in the statutes. Despite the fact that none of them specifically provide that public property will or will not be subject to special assessments, this court has held that public property is liable for such assessments without an express declaration to that effect in the statutes.
We dealt with this question in Palmer v. Munro, supra, and said:comm maksymetz kostyk case briefs  no. (2d) ,  manitoba court of queen’s bench january 20, facts schur, kostyk, and maksymetz.
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation, U.S. (), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that absent explicit congressional direction to the contrary, it must be presumed that a State does not have jurisdiction to tax tribal members who live and work in Indian country, whether the particular territory consists of a formal or informal reservation.
case no. ea _____ substitute brief of intervenor missouri landowners alliance in support of respondent psc express terms of § those franchises must be obtained by the utility before the public service commission (psc) may grant it a certificate of llc v.
pub. serv. comm. With him on the briefs were Paul L. Zimmering, Noel J. Darce, and Dana M. Shelton. Carol J.
Banta, See La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, F.3d at When Entergy implements the bandwidth remedy each This case is about the depreciation rates used in the. This case was lost at the Industrial Commission level. Attorney Magill filed an appeal to the Common Pleas Court which sided with the Industrial Commission.
Attorney Magill filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals who also sided with the Industrial Commission. 2. Whether the court of appeals correctly deter-mined that multicandidate political committees are not subject to discrimination that would trigger a consti-.