Despite recent step-by-step annexations by the City of Mulvane, Sumner County District Court Judge Scott McQuin ruled again against a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the Sumner County Commissioners targeting the casino annexations.
    McQuin said the remaining argument was contingent on the annexation itself, which he said seemed to be extreme in nature.  McQuin also agreed with attorneys representing Sumner County the case should continue with discovery.
    “I’m not prepared to dismiss the case at this point,” McQuin announced at the Friday, June 6 hearing.
    Attorneys will set another conference with the judge to determine the next steps of the case.  No further court dates have been set at this time.
    Attorney Jim Walker for the City of Mulvane argued in court the re-annexation process by the City of Mulvane made the case filed by attorneys for the Sumner County Commissioners a moot issue.
    Walker said the re-annexations were done in response to McQuin’s ruling against dismissing the case on March 12.
    “Mulvane, we think, has made a good faith effort to rectify its perceived problems with the annexation ordinance,” Walker stated. 
    Attorney Teresa Watson, representing Sumner County, argued the heart of the matter is still the legality of the three annexation attempts by the City of Mulvane, and argued the strip annexations still violate Kansas law, which  defines the proper procedure as an island annexation.
    “What the City of Mulvane is asking the court to do today is be the first court in the state of Kansas to approve a strip annexation,” Watson said. 
    Watson told the court the case would move into a discovery phase, possibly including obtaining documents related to the City of Mulvane seeking landowner’s permission to annex portions of their property, seeking approval of their annexation by the Kansas Turnpike Authority, and conversations between the City and casino developers relating to their requests for the annexations and promises to pay for all related expenses.
    Watson said these types of things don’t happen in a usual annexation or legal annexation case, and need to be flushed out in the discovery process.
    “Courts are allowed to review annexations for legality, fraud, abuse and irregularity,” Watson said.  “We’re not here to question their wisdom — we’re interested in the legality of what they did,” Watson said.
    McQuin appeared to be in favor of the case continuing with discovery in his ruling.
    “Let’s find out what’s going on here,” he stated in his decision.
    McQuin also ruled against a motion to change the venue of the case to Shawnee County District Court, which has been set by the state as the location for legal action related to Senate Bill 66.
    Attorney Walker also argued the court case should be moved to Shawnee County District Court, which is defined in Senate Bill 66 as the proper location for litigation related to the bill.
    Walker stated the case as filed by the Sumner County Commissioners relates to the senate bill, because of language they used citing the annexations as a violation of the bill.  Walker also argued the case should change venue because the annexation issue related to Mulvane’s endorsements of casino proposals.
    Watson argued the Sumner County Commissioners have filed an annexation case, including a violation of public policy, but not a violation of Senate Bill 66.        Walker also stated the case should be moved to Shawnee County District Court, where the two are also involved in separate litigation, for “judicial economy.”
    Although the motion to change venue was denied on the basis that the challenges were of public policy and not a claim that arises out of Senate Bill 66, both parties will appear in Shawnee County District Court for a hearing on the case filed by the City of Mulvane against the Sumner County Commissioners and the Kansas Lottery Commission on Tuesday, June 17.