Court Opinion

ID: 9590186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:52:19.017032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:58.519746
License: Public Domain

Wedell, J.
(concurring specially): My views concerning the unconstitutionality of a statute similar in purpose to the one now under consideration are contained in my dissenting opinion in State, ex ret., v. Sage Stores Co., 157 Kan. 404, 419, 141 P. 2d 655. The supreme court of the United States rejected those views in Sage Stores Co. v. Kansas, 323 U. S. 32, 89 L. ed. 25, 65 S. Ct. 9.
It appears to me the last-mentioned decision, in principle, is con*354trolling in the instant case. Personally, I adhere to the views expressed in my former dissent and for the reasons therein stated. However, as a member of this court, I am bound by the decision of the supreme court of the United States on the question of constitutionality of the law. For that reason I am obliged to concur in the instant decision.
Smith and Wertz, JJ., join in the foregoing concurring opinion.