Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 17-618 (2026)

Eminent domain, exercise by sundry corporations and partnerships

✓ current as of May 2026

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

17-618. Eminent domain, exercise by sundry corporations and partnerships. Lands may be appropriated for the use of macadam-road, plank-road, hospital corporation or association, telegraph and telephone corporations, electric, hydraulic, irrigating, milling and manufacturing corporations using power, oil companies, pipeline companies, and for the piping of gas in the same manner as is provided in K.S.A. 26-501 to 26-516, inclusive, and any macadam-road, plank-road, telegraph and telephone corporations, hydraulic, irrigating, oil company, pipeline company, gas company, partnership holding a certificate of convenience as a public utility issued by the state corporation commission, milling or manufacturing corporation using power desiring the right to dam or take water from any stream, to conduct water in canals or raceways or pipes, or to conduct compressed air in pipes, or to conduct oil in pipes or conduct gas in pipes, or transmit power or communications by shafting, belting, or belting and pulleys, or ropes and pulleys, or by electrical current, or by compressed air, may obtain such right or the right-of-way for all necessary canals, raceways, pipes, shafting, belting and pulleys, ropes and pulleys or wires or cables in manner as aforesaid; and such canals, raceways, pipes, shafting, belting, belting and pulleys, ropes and pulleys or wires or cables may be laid, carried or stretched on, through or over any land or lot, or along or upon any stream of water, using so much of the water thereof as may be needed for any of the purposes aforesaid, or through any street or alley or public ground of any city of the second or third class: Provided, That no such canal or raceway shall be located through any street or alley or any public ground of any city without the consent of the municipal authorities thereof: Provided further, That it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to locate or construct any irrigating canal or raceway along or upon any stream of water or take and use the water of any stream in such manner as to interfere with or in any wise hinder, delay or injure any milling or irrigating improvements already constructed or located along or upon any stream of water, or to diminish the supply of water flowing to or through any established irrigating canal: Provided further, That in case of the erection of a dam, the report of the commissioners, instead of defining the quantity and boundaries of the land overflowed, shall designate particularly the height of such dam.

History: G.S. 1868, ch. 23, § 88; L. 1871, ch. 64, § 1; L. 1876, ch. 58, § 1; L. 1891, ch. 85, § 1; L. 1899, ch. 95, § 1; L. 1901, ch. 128, § 1; L. 1917, ch. 122, § 1; R.S. 1923, 17-618; L. 1947, ch. 183, § 1; L. 1963, ch. 234, § 37; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1938–2008 · leading case: Williams Telecomm. Co. v. Gragg, 750 P.2d 398 (Kan. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams Telecomm. Co. v. Gragg, 750 P.2d 398 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 7× “WILTEL’S RIGHT TO EMINENT DOMAIN K.S.A. 17-618 grants the power of eminent domain to telephone corporations desiring to “transmit .”

Spears v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 455 P.2d 496 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 7× “*524 Under the provisions of K.S.A. 17-618 various corporations affected with a public interest are empowered to exercise the right of eminent domain.”

Schuck v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 180 P.3d 571 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “The court then found that Rural Telephone, as a Kansas telephone public utility that holds a Certificate of Convenience and Authority, has the power of eminent domain under K.S.A. 17-618 and K.S.A. 17-1903. The court ruled that Rural Telephone buried its cable at a location that…”

Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Winn, 605 P.2d 125 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 3× “*104 The statute authorizing KG&E to exercise the right of eminent domain in this case is K.S.A. 17-618 and provides that “lands may be appropriated for the use of” certain corporations.”

Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 567 P.2d 1343 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 2× “That Cities Service has exercised its rights of eminent domain to build pipelines in Kansas for the general commercial supply of gas to be sold as energy for heat and other purposes in Kansas and elsewhere; that such right is granted to Cities Service pursuant to K.S.A. 17-618…”

Strain v. Cities Serv. Gas Co., 83 P.2d 124 (Kan. 1938). · cites it 2× “Section 17-618 provides that lands may be appropriated for the use of oil companies, pipe-line companies, and for the piping of gas “in the same manner as is provided .”

Cain v. City of Topeka, 603 P.2d 1031 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “The hospital was expanding and the only adjacent land available for desired additional parking was the land purchased by the Association.”

Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Ritchie, 722 P.2d 1120 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “K.S.A. 17-618, the statute which authorized KP&L’s taking in the case at hand, does not provide for the acquisition of a fee simple interest; rather, the condemner acquires a permanent easement on the subject property.”

Steele v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 659 P.2d 217 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 17-618 authorized any oil company, pipeline company, or gas company desiring the right to conduct oil in pipes or to conduct gas in pipes to condemn right-of-way easements for that purpose.”

Mid-Am. Pipe Line Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 298 F. Supp. 1112 (D. Kan. 1969). · cites it 10× “Fundamentally this case involves the interpretation of K.S.A. 17-618, an eminent domain statute, as it applies to Mid-America, plaintiff at bar.”

Bd. of Educ. v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc., 636 P.2d 802 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “17-618, did not specifically authorize the condemning authority to take title to real property in fee simple, the condemner was limited to an appropriation limited to the use and purposes of the corporation, a permanent easement.”

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.