Kansas: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)


Examples from Schmidt v. Kan. State Bd. of Technical Professions, 271 Kan. 206, 21 P.3d 542 (2001)

. . . .

Michael Schmidt, a licensed engineer, appeals the decision of the Shawnee County District Court affirming an order of the Kansas State Board of Technical Professions (the Board). The Board determined that certain construction drawings prepared by Schmidt constituted the practice of architecture as defined by K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 74-7003. The Board further held that Schmidt, unlicensed to practice architecture, was in violation of the regulations pertaining to professional conduct established by K.A.R. 66-6-4(e) (1995 Supp.) which regulations prohibit a licensee from affixing a signature, seal, or both, to a plan dealing with a subject matter outside the licensee's field of competence. The Board publicly censured Schmidt because he affixed his engineer's seal to documents dealing with the subject matter of architecture, an area which it held to be outside his field of competence as established by his education, training and licensing. The Board also required that he pay costs of $ 5,000, an amount the Board determined was a portion of the Board's investigative cost, expenses, and attorneys fees in prosecuting the matter, and an amount equal to the statutory limit.

. . . .

Because the primary issue in this appeal involves the interpretation of statutes and regulations, the rules of statutory construction set forth in Todd v. Kelly, 251 Kan. 512, 516, 837 P.2d 381(1992), apply. "'"In order to ascertain the legislative intent, courts are not permitted to consider only a certain isolated part or parts of an act, but are required to consider and construe together all parts thereof in pari materia."'" Landry v. Graphic Technology, Inc., 268 Kan. 359, 365, 2 P.3d 758 (2000) (quoting Todd, 251 Kan. at 516).

Similarly, when interpreting administrative regulations, the courts generally will defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. The agency's interpretation will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589, 595, 921 P.2d 1225 (1996). However, the administrative agency may not use its power to issue regulations which alter the legislative act which is being administered. In re Tax Appeal of Newton Country Club Co., 12 Kan. App. 2d 638, 647, 753 P.2d 304, rev. denied 243 Kan. 779 (1988).

. . . .

Kan. Ct. R. 6.08, http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Appellate_Rules/Rule%206.08.pdf.

Rule 6.08 References Within Briefs

In the body of a brief, unless the context particularly requires a distinction between parties as appellant or appellee, they should normally be referred to by their status in the district court, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, etc., or by name. References to court cases shall be by the official citations followed by any generally recognized reporter system citations.