Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 19-2705 (2026)

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

19-2705.

History: L. 1927, ch. 165, § 2; L. 1930, ch. 10, § 1; L. 1931, ch. 165, § 3; L. 1943, ch. 138, § 1; L. 1957, ch. 180, § 1; L. 1959, ch. 137, § 3; L. 1965, ch. 171, § 1; L. 1967, ch. 149, § 2; L. 1969, ch. 155, § 2; L. 1970, ch. 64, § 53; L. 1974, ch. 122, § 2; L. 1975, ch. 167, § 3; Repealed, L. 1983, ch. 99, § 30; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Equal benefit finding not supported by facts; assessment unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory. Hurley v. Board of County Commissioners 188 Kan. 60, 61, 64, 65, 360 P.2d 1110.

2. Cited in holding action by county clerk placing property on tax rolls was unauthorized under facts of case. Nickelson v. Board of County Commissioners, 209 Kan. 53, 57, 495 P.2d 1015.

3. Time limitation prescribed hereunder held inapplicable to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp. V1981). Dutoit v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 233 Kan. 995, 1005, 1006, 667 P.2d 879 (1983).

4. Procedure did not prevent unconstitutional taking; special assessments violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and attorney fees appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Allison v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 241 Kan. 266, 270, 271, 737 P.2d 6 (1987).

5. Noted in opinion that no right to appeal legislative acts of county commissions exists under K.S.A. 19-223; what redress available examined. Umbehr v. Board of Wabaunsee County Comm'rs, 252 Kan. 30, 35, 843 P.2d 176 (1992).


Previous | Next

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1983–1992 · leading case: Dutoit v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs, 667 P.2d 879 (Kan. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dutoit v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs, 667 P.2d 879 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 5× “60-907 and K.S.A. 19-2705. K.S.A. 60-907 and its predecessor statute, G.”
Allison v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs, 737 P.2d 6 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “Here, the Board contends, because plaintiffs could have obtained administrative review (K.S.A. 19-2705 [repealed, L. 1983, ch. 99, § 30]) or injunctive relief (K.”
Umbehr v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs, 843 P.2d 176 (Kan. 1992). “We noted the 30 days a party has to challenge a special assessment under K.S.A. 19-2705 (Ensley 1981) had expired and observed that even if the 30-day limitation of 19-2705 did not apply, the doctrine of laches was applicable because the plaintiffs had failed to assert a prompt…”
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.