History:
L. 1965, ch. 131, § 6; L. 1967, ch. 87, § 1; L. 1973, ch. 59, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 67, § 1; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Reasonableness of annexation hereunder not reviewable under K.S.A. 12-712. Sabatini v. Jayhawk Construction Co., 214 Kan. 408, 413, 520 P.2d 1230.
2. Mentioned in action for declaratory judgment of inverse condemnation for refusal to approve platting of property. Ventures in Property I v. City of Wichita, 225 Kan. 698, 705, 594 P.2d 671.
4. Act is uniformly applicable to cities electing to adopt procedure; exercise of home rule considered; ordinance in conflict herewith invalid. Moore v. City of Lawrence, 232 Kan. 353, 654 P.2d 445 (1982).
5. Cited; proper statute to challenge city ordinance rezoning property, timeliness of notice of appeal, effective date of ordinance examined. Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 243 Kan. 522, 527, 759 P.2d 113 (1988).
Moore v. City of Lawrence, 654 P.2d 445 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 13ד1 of the City Code of the City of Lawrence were in conflict with K.S.A. 12-705b and were therefore invalid, and that dedications of streets, utility easements and other rights-of-way indicated on appellees’ subdivision plat were automatically accepted by the public when the plat…”
City of Salina v. Jaggers, 612 P.2d 618 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 3ד12-705a provides if the area designated by the city for subdivision regulation includes area lying outside of the city and governed by county regulations, a copy of the city resolution designating the area shall be certified to the board of county commissioners, and within sixty…”
Bigs v. City of Wichita, 23 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2001). “Application of the enactment to any city was optional, which gave rise to the principal question: “It is clear diat initially these statutes are not uniformly applicable to all cities as they provide an optional procedure which may be adopted by any cily as a means of governing…”
Ventures in Prop. I v. City of Wichita, 594 P.2d 671 (Kan. 1979). “While the appellant’s action more properly lies in mandamus or as a declaratory judgment action attacking the platting ordinance, K.S.A. 12-705b, enough evidence of an actual controversy exists to determine whether a taking has occurred by declaratory relief.”
Rodrock Enter., L.P. v. City of Olathe, 21 P.3d 598 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “12-752(b), contains substantially the same language. However, the statute defining the scope of the subdivision regulations has been significantly modified.”
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.