attorney. To further support their argument, they point to Attorney General Opinion No. 93-85, where it was stated that “[interested parties may then take legal action attacking the validity of the incorporation within the 90 days.” They also point to die letter from the Attorney General’s office to plaintiffs’ attorney where it was clearly stated that private individuals have the authority to challenge an election concerning the creation of a watershed district. However, Kansas law is to the contrary. It is settled law in Kansas that a private citizen does not have standing to challenge die le gality of the organization of a municipal corporation. See, e.g., Bishop v. Sewer District No. 1, 184 Kan. 376, 379, 336 P.2d 815 (1959); Elting v. Clouston, 114 Kan. 85, 86, 217 Pac. 295 (1923) (<HOLDING>); A.T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Wilson, Treas., 33
holding private citizens have no standing to question the legitimacy of the proceedings to organize a high school district nor enjoin a public official from canvassing the votes cast at an election held pursuant thereto holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding that mayor is a high public official holding private citizens have no standing to enforce broader state regulations contained in npdes permits holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation