
    No. 44,518
    The Board of Satanta Joint Rural High School District No. 2 and the Members Thereof, Carlyle Kiehne, William Helton and Elwin Anthony, Individually and As Such Members, Appellants, v. The Haskell County Planning Board and the Members Thereof, Harold Lower, Russell Winters, Wesley Lucas, Charles McDonald, Elwin Anthony and Joe Starke, and Adel Throckmorton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Appellees.
    
    (416 P. 2d 791)
    Opinion filed July 14, 1966.
    
      Dale M. Stucky, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Eugene L, Smith, of Liberal, and Wayne Coulson, Paul R. Kitch, Donald R. Newkirk, Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Philip Kassebaum, John E. Rees, Robert T. Cornwell, Willard B. Thompson, David W. Buxton, John T. Conlee, John Prather, and Richard I. Stephenson, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellants, and Homer V. Gooing and Hugo T. Wedell, both of Wichita, of counsel.
    
      E. F. Russell, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Ulysses, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, and J. Richard Foth, Assistant Attorney General, were with him on the briefs for appellee, Adel Throckmorton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
    
      Leland E. Nordling, of Johnson, was on the brief for appellee, The Haskell County Planning Board.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kaul, J.:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the district court entered in favor of defendants-appellees, The Haskell County Planning Board and the Members thereof, in a declaratory judgment action. Plaintiffs-appellants also appeal from an order of the district court dismissing the action as to the defendant, appellee, Adel Throckmorton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The action arises out of the same controversy involved in a companion case entitled: Board of Satanta v. Grant County Planning Board, 195 Kan. 640, 408 P. 2d 655, decided by this court on December 11, 1965.

The facts in the instant case are similar to those involved in the companion case. The issues of law appear to be identical in the two actions and on oral argument, before this court, appellants’ counsel conceded such to be the cáse.

The same basic question was presented in both cases: Is the State Superintendent authorized to conclusively determine whether “gray-area” shall be transferred from one planning unit to another? The question was resolved in the affirmative in Board of Satanta v. Grant County Planning Board, supra, and that opinion is adopted and incorporated herein as controlling and determinative of the issues raised in this appeal.

It would serve no useful purpose to restate the reasons for our previous decision.

The judgment is affirmed.  