K.S.A. » Chapter 17
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 17-4742 (2026)

Title of act

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

17-4742. Title of act. This act shall be known and be cited as the "urban renewal law."

History: L. 1955, ch. 86, § 1; June 30.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Various constitutional objections held without merit; act valid. State, ex rel., v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kansas City, 179 Kan. 435, 296 P.2d 656.

2. Injunction petition to enjoin execution of urban renewal plan held sufficient. Offen v. City of Topeka, 186 Kan. 389, 390, 350 P.2d 33.

3. Finding that conduct of municipal and urban renewal officials did not constitute fraud, bad faith or abuse of discretion upheld. Bowers v. City of Kansas City, 202 Kan. 268, 270, 448 P.2d 6.

4. Cited in mandamus action; initiative ordinance to bar urban renewal activity would violate federal constitution's prohibition against impairment of contract. State, ex rel., v. Paulsen, 204 Kan. 857, 858, 465 P.2d 982.

5. Cited; urban renewal law followed. Anderson v. City of Parsons, 209 Kan. 337, 338, 496 P.2d 1333.

6. Mentioned in action by railroad to recover expenses in relocating tracks in connection with urban renewal project; exculpatory agreement inapplicable. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. City of Topeka, 213 Kan. 658, 659, 518 P.2d 372.

7. City has power to rezone property in urban renewal plan area since rezoning classifications included in plan residential requirements. Robert L. Rieke Bldg. Co. v. City of Olathe, 10 Kan. App. 2d 239, 246, 697 P.2d 72 (1985).

8. Zoning activities furthering and implementing urban redevelopment exempt from antitrust scrutiny under "state action" doctrine. Russell v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 690 F. Supp. 947, 953 (D. Kan. 1988).

9. Cited; constitutionality upheld in challenge to city's ordinance relating to uninhabitable properties. Bolden v. City of Topeka, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1210-1212 (2008).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2008 · leading case: Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111 (10th Cir. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111 (10th Cir. 1991). “Kan.Stat.Ann. §§ 17-4742 through -4762 (1988).”
Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. City of Lawrence, 715 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Kan. 1989). “, and the Urban Renewal Law, K.S.A. 17-4742 et seq. In response, plaintiffs argue that the Kansas legislature, in enacting the zoning enabling statutes, did not contemplate the type of anticompetitive action complained of in this case.”
Russell v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 690 F. Supp. 947 (D. Kan. 1988). “Consequently, the legislation controlling defendants’ challenged activities is found in the Urban Renewal Law, K.S.A. 17-4742 et seq. The court concludes that defendant city’s challenged activities were authorized, that its actions further a clearly articulated and affirmatively…”
Bolden v. City of Topeka, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “The City’s Adoption Of The 15 Per Cent Demolition Threshold In 1955, the Kansas legislature enacted the urban renewal law, K.S.A. § 17-4742 et seq., which authorizes municipalities to adopt ordinances relating to repair and demolition of unsafe structures, see id.”
Robert L. Rieke Bldg. Co. v. City of Olathe, 697 P.2d 72 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “The contract at issue here does not delegate the authority to zone and appears to be precisely the kind envisaged in the Kansas Urban Renewal Law, K.S.A. 17-4742 et seq., as specifically set forth in K.”
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.