K.S.A. » Chapter 12

K.S.A. § 12-760

Same; appeals to district court

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-760. Same; appeals to district court. (a) Within 30 days of the final decision of the city or county, any person aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the district court of the county to determine the reasonableness of such final decision.

(b) The provisions of this section shall become effective on and after January 1, 1992.

History: L. 1991, ch. 56, § 23; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners (2009) kan · cites it 9× “§ 1983 [2000]) holding that their consideration was premature until the court could determine the reasonableness under K.S.A. 12-760 of the Board’s adoption of Resolution No.”
Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham (2007) ksd · cites it 8× “The Board maintains that since all Board members signed the Journal Entry, it constituted the final decision of the County.”
Stueckemann v. City of Basehor (2015) kan · cites it 4× “, K.S.A. 12-760.” 292 Kan. at 714 . Faced with tírese two competing standards of review—the limited grounds for reviewing quasi-judicial functions under K.”
Evans v. City of Emporia (2010) kanctapp · cites it 7× “12-760(a) was clear that this was not a criminal case with constitutional concerns, the parties stated they would not be raising any new issues, and there were possible jurisdiction issues if the Evans would settle their case and the other parties were not satisfied with the…”
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka (2013) kan “12-532(f); K.S.A. 12-760(a); K.S.A. 15-126(a); K.S.A.”
Board of County Commissioners v. Smith (2005) kan · cites it 3× “12-712 (Ensley 1982) (repealed 1991); K.S.A. 12-760. In so holding, the court recognized the validity of the city’s 1989 rezoning, and concluded that the zoning had changed to R-1.”
Tri-County Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Board of Harper County Comm'rs (2004) kanctapp · cites it 2× “The court conducted an evidentiary hearing *1173 on the motion and ultimately reversed its prior order and set aside the special use permit, finding that “the cart got a little ahead of the horse.” WCKI and the Board appealed, but the Board withdrew its appeal prior to briefing.”
Manly v. City of Shawnee (2008) kan “On February 7,2006, the Manlys filed a petition in district court, pursuant to K.S.A. 12-760(a), requesting a determination of the reasonableness of the City’s approval of the special use permit and seeking an injunction during the pendency of the litigation.”
Hacker v. Sedgwick County (2012) kanctapp · cites it 16× “12-759(f) and K.S.A. 12-760 challenging the reasonableness of the Board’s decision.”
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Board of County Commissioners (2011) kan “, K.S.A. 12-760 (“Within 30 days of the final decision of the city or county, any person aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the district court of the county to determine the reasonableness of such final decision” regarding zoning.”
Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners (2011) kan “§ 1983 ) holding that their consideration was premature until the court could determine the reasonableness under K.S.A. 12-760 of the Board’s adoption of the resolution amending the zoning regulations.”
Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. City of Olathe (1998) kan “K.S.A. 12-760(a), concerning zoning decisions, provides in part: “Within 30 days of the final decision of the city or county, any person aggrieved thereby may maintain an action in the district court of the county to determine the reasonableness of such final decision.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 12-760(a) — 15 cases
Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners (2009) kan “§ 1983 [2000]) holding that their consideration was premature until the court could determine the reasonableness under K.S.A. 12-760 of the Board’s adoption of Resolution No.”
Stueckemann v. City of Basehor (2015) kan “, K.S.A. 12-760.” 292 Kan. at 714 . Faced with tírese two competing standards of review—the limited grounds for reviewing quasi-judicial functions under K.”
Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka (2013) kan “12-532(f); K.S.A. 12-760(a); K.S.A. 15-126(a); K.S.A.”
Evans v. City of Emporia (2010) kanctapp “12-760(a) was clear that this was not a criminal case with constitutional concerns, the parties stated they would not be raising any new issues, and there were possible jurisdiction issues if the Evans would settle their case and the other parties were not satisfied with the…”
Manly v. City of Shawnee (2008) kan “On February 7,2006, the Manlys filed a petition in district court, pursuant to K.S.A. 12-760(a), requesting a determination of the reasonableness of the City’s approval of the special use permit and seeking an injunction during the pendency of the litigation.”
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.