Court Opinion

ID: 9683738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:36:10.517242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.056076
License: Public Domain

HOLLINGSWORTH, J.
I concur in the opinion of Tipton, J. In the Taylor case, one of the issues presented by the intervenors (whose rights are identical in origin and substance with those of these respondents) was that “relators proposed annexation is factually unreasonable and for that reason is void.” We decided that issue unequivocally and adversely to those intervenors. We found that annexation was factually reasonable and valid.
It is inaccurate, I think, to now say we were merely deciding that annexation was not conclusively' shown to be unreasonable and, therefore, we majr not or should not decide whether our decision, in the Taylor case is res adjudicata of the identical issue here presented. If, by the Taylor case, we rightfully decided (as I think we did) the issue *1218here presented, then we should say so. Otherwise, the issue may be presented again and again.
Let us suppose that a newly elected city council, acting on its own initiative or under the impetus of lawfully filed petitions, decides to submit the issue of de-annexation, even though there is no showing of changed conditions, may we not be again called upon to decide whether the matter is “fairly debatable”? In such an event, under the rule that the action of the council in submitting the issue of deannexation constitutes prima facie evidence of its reasonableness, the burden of proof would shift; a burden the successful “annexers” in the Taylor ease should not be required to bear. If, however, res adjudieata apiplies, the burden of proof would remain where we placed it in the first instance.
Our opinion in the Taylor case held that as of the date of adjudication annexation was reasonable. That decision should stand until a change of conditions is shown, and the burden of proving such a change should remain upon the “de-annexers”. The taxpayers, home owners and business interests of Kansas City should not be subjected to the possibility of recurring litigation of an issue once judicially determined. Yet, unless we apply the rule of res adjudieata, it can happen whenever the “Outs” become the “Ins”.