Court Opinion

ID: 9821770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:26:21.532069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:56.383169
License: Public Domain

Rosen, J.,
joins in part the foregoing dissenting opinion: With tire exception of the economic conclusion, I join Justice Stegall’s dissenting opinion finding K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 79-1460 constitutional. I find the dissenting opinion compelling in its analysis of the standard of review and the rational basis that supports the legislative scheme. The majority fails to state a standard of review but apparently adopts a zero-tolerance standard for evaluating constitutional issues, which I find inappropriate in a case such as this. I take exception only with Justice Stegall’s digression into economic theory, which is an issue not before us in this case. While legal scholars and academic literature have both vigorously denounced and rebutted the virtues of Law and Economic Theory, any inclusion presuming its validity is superfluous. In this case, as Justice Stegall himself points out, such inclusion does “not have a direct bearing on the constitutional questions posed in this case” 303 Kan. at 884, and is unnecessary to the finding of constitutionality.