Kevin Huffman d/b/a Huffman Mobile Management, et al., Appellants,
City of Maize, Kansas, Appellee.
BY THE COURT
constitutionality of a municipal ordinance is a question of
law, over which appellate courts have de novo review.
determining the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance,
appellate courts are required to presume that the ordinance
is constitutional; resolve all doubts in favor of validating
the ordinance; uphold the ordinance if there is a reasonable
way to do so; and strike down the ordinance only if it
clearly appears to be unconstitutional.
have broad police powers to enact ordinances regulating or
restricting certain activities to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of the public. Under the Home Rule Amendment to
the Kansas Constitution, Kan. Const. art. 12, § 5,
municipalities have the power to adopt such ordinances
provided the legislature has not addressed the issue.
municipal ordinance does not violate equal protection if
there is any set of facts that may reasonably justify its
enactment of a municipal ordinance must implicate legitimate
goals, and the means chosen must bear a rational relationship
to those goals so that it treats all similarly situated
not a practice to be encouraged, a district court does not
violate K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-252(a)(1) or Supreme Court Rule
165 (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 214) when it adopts a party's
findings of fact and conclusions of law in their entirety as
long as the district court individually considers each
finding and conclusion.
from Sedgwick District Court; Christopher M. Magana, judge.
Opinion filed September 22, 2017. Affirmed.
Nicholas R. Grillot, of Hinkle Law Firm, LLC, of Wichita, for
appellants Justin Westhoff and Steven Westhoff.
H. Cassell, of Eron Law, P.A., of Wichita, for appellant
Stephen E. Robison, Lyndon W. Vix, and T. Chet Compton, of
Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C., of Wichita, for
Malone, P.J., Pierron and Bruns, JJ.