K.S.A. » Chapter 12
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-527 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-527.

History: L. 1968, ch. 80, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 71, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 67, § 1; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 15, § 7; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 48× “We discern five potential questions raised by this appeal; (1) Were the appraisers and the district judge required as a matter of law to consider or award going concern value in arriving at the award amount? (2) What was die appropriate procedure to be followed in a district…”
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (D. Kan. 2009). · cites it 38× “Rural claims that defendant City of Eudora (“City”) violated § 1926 by annexing certain properties within its service area and proceeding to enforce the provisions of K.S.A. § 12-527, allowing the City to purchase Rural’s assets.”
City of Eudora v. Rural Water Dist. No. 4, 875 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “In September 2007, Eudora moved to enforce its rights under K.S.A. § 12-527 to replace Douglas-4 as the water service provider for the Service Area.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “Further, if we were comparing two statutes allowing for appeals from an administrative proceeding — one worded like the eminent domain procedure stating the appeal shall be a new action and tried like any civil case and the other worded like K.”
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan., 659 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 12-527, the statute cited in Douglas-4's briefs, stated: "[w]henever a city annexes land located within a rural water district .”
Smith v. Barber, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 2× “at 4-5 (citing Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-527 , 14-201, 15-204 and City of Altamont Ordinances)).”
City of Park City v. Rural Water Dist. No. 2, Sedgwick Cnty., 960 F. Supp. 255 (D. Kan. 1997). “Plaintiff filed this action in the Eighteenth Judicial District, District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, seeking declaratory and other relief under K.S.A. 12-527. That statute provides the procedure, once land located within a rural water district has been annexed by a…”
City of DeSoto v. Consol. Rural Water Dist. No. 6, 930 P.2d 624 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “The City contends that the district court’s interpretation of K.S.A. 12-527 was erroneous and that there was not substantial competent evidence to support the court’s finding of value for the annexed property.”
— K.S.A. § 12-527(a) — 2 cases
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). “We discern five potential questions raised by this appeal; (1) Were the appraisers and the district judge required as a matter of law to consider or award going concern value in arriving at the award amount? (2) What was die appropriate procedure to be followed in a district…”
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (D. Kan. 2009). “Rural claims that defendant City of Eudora (“City”) violated § 1926 by annexing certain properties within its service area and proceeding to enforce the provisions of K.S.A. § 12-527, allowing the City to purchase Rural’s assets.”
— K.S.A. § 12-527(a)(3) — 2 cases
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). “We discern five potential questions raised by this appeal; (1) Were the appraisers and the district judge required as a matter of law to consider or award going concern value in arriving at the award amount? (2) What was die appropriate procedure to be followed in a district…”
City of DeSoto v. Consol. Rural Water Dist. No. 6, 930 P.2d 624 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “The City contends that the district court’s interpretation of K.S.A. 12-527 was erroneous and that there was not substantial competent evidence to support the court’s finding of value for the annexed property.”
— K.S.A. § 12-527(b) — 2 cases
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). “We discern five potential questions raised by this appeal; (1) Were the appraisers and the district judge required as a matter of law to consider or award going concern value in arriving at the award amount? (2) What was die appropriate procedure to be followed in a district…”
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (D. Kan. 2009). “Rural claims that defendant City of Eudora (“City”) violated § 1926 by annexing certain properties within its service area and proceeding to enforce the provisions of K.S.A. § 12-527, allowing the City to purchase Rural’s assets.”
— K.S.A. § 12-527(c) — 1 case
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan., 604 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (D. Kan. 2009). “Rural claims that defendant City of Eudora (“City”) violated § 1926 by annexing certain properties within its service area and proceeding to enforce the provisions of K.S.A. § 12-527, allowing the City to purchase Rural’s assets.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.