State v. Morrison

302 Kan. 804 (2015) · Supreme Court of Kansas · October 2, 2015 · No. No. 110,835

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court considered whether David Scott Morrison, a Prairie Village city councilman, should be judicially ousted through a quo warranto action for willful misconduct and neglect of official duties. The court held that willful conduct under K.S.A. 60-1205(1) and (2) requires both a bad or corrupt purpose and illegal action or inaction that was not justified under the circumstances. It reversed the Court of Appeals and the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Rosen, J.; Biles, J.; Johnson, J.; Wilson, District Judge, assigned; Stegall, J., not participating
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Decision date
October 2, 2015
Docket number
No. 110,835
Procedural posture
The State brought a quo warranto action seeking Morrison's removal from the Prairie Village City Council. The district court ordered his ouster under K.S.A. 60-1205(1) and (2). The Court of Appeals reversed and directed entry of judgment for Morrison. The Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
Standard of review
Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo. A quo warranto ouster decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, including whether the decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, based on an error of law, or based on an error of fact.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
David Scott Morrison v. State of Kansas
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

municipal lawremediesstatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

municipal lawremediesadministrative lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. What legal standard governs judicial ouster for willful misconduct or willful neglect under K.S.A. 60-1205(1) and (2)?
  2. Whether a bad or corrupt purpose, in addition to intentional illegal or unjustified conduct, is required for ouster under K.S.A. 60-1205(1) and (2).
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering Morrison's removal without determining whether his conduct was prompted by a bad or corrupt purpose.

Holdings

  1. To justify judicial ouster for willful misconduct or willful neglect, the State must establish both a bad or corrupt purpose and illegal action or inaction that was not justified under the circumstances.
  2. The Court of Appeals applied too high a standard by requiring persistent and habitual disregard or conduct posing a grave threat to public safety or the public fisc.
  3. The district court abused its discretion by failing to determine whether Morrison acted with a bad or corrupt purpose.

Key quotations

These two standards are not synonymous, and we clarify today that such "willful" conduct requires both. (814)
A finding of a bad or corrupt purpose is also necessary to satisfy ouster under K.S.A. 60-1205(1) and (2). (818)

Factual background

Morrison, an elected Prairie Village city councilman, allowed his homeless friend Kelley Malone to stay overnight in city hall on several occasions. Morrison gave Malone his councilman security code and used misleading explanations to city dispatchers regarding Malone's presence. The district court found that Morrison's conduct violated Prairie Village City Code provisions governing improper favors and use of city property for personal convenience, and also found that the conduct created unnecessary health and safety risks.

Procedural history

The State filed its quo warranto petition on January 17, 2013, alleging willful misconduct, willful neglect of a legal duty, and criminal acts involving moral turpitude. After a hearing and an advisory-jury proceeding, the district court found violations of the Prairie Village City Code and ordered Morrison removed from office. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence did not meet its heightened standard for judicial ouster. The Supreme Court reversed both lower-court judgments and remanded for application of the correct standard.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether Morrison's conduct was prompted by a bad or corrupt purpose and to apply the governing ouster standard. The Supreme Court also held that the State's motion to set aside the Court of Appeals' stay was moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…