Court Opinion

ID: 9578203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:42:48.174935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:14.709139
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
dissenting: I have no quarrel with the holdings of the various cases cited in the majority opinion. I do not believe, however, that those cases are applicable herein. We are not dealing with a vast public utility whose operation is out of the control of the customers. Defendant is a rural water district organized pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-612 et seq. The operation of a rural water district is a cooperative venture. The participating members elect the officers. K.S.A. 82a-618. Plaintiffs are participating members of defendant rural water district.
Due process of law has repeatedly been held not to be fixed. It has often been characterized as the equivalent of fairness under the particular circumstances. The participating members (plaintiffs) were in apparent violation of their agreement with the water district. The plaintiffs repeatedly conferred with the Chairman of the Board of defendant water district on the plaintiffs’ property. Unlike the typical public utility case, plaintiffs herein were conferring with decision-making officers as opposed to lower echelon employees. At anytime plaintiffs could have cleared up the controversy by showing what plumbing arrangements they had set up. Plaintiffs were fully apprised of what the conditions were for receiving water. They admitted using district water in their well without prior permission — a clear-cut violation of a condition for receiving water. They also knew violation of the *251terms would result in loss of the right to district water. Even after the water service was shut off, the plaintiffs turned it back on repeatedly — even breaking a lock to do so.
Under the totality of the circumstances herein, due process was had. I would reverse the trial court.
Herd, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.