History:
L. 1939, ch. 164, § 13; L. 1965, ch. 178, § 15; L. 1980, ch. 63, § 3; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Order denying application for permit to build mobile home park unreasonable. Scherrer v. Board of County Commissioners, 201 Kan. 424, 425, 441 P.2d 901.
2. Persons bringing action hereunder must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unreasonableness of governing body's action. Creten v. Board of County Commissioners, 204 Kan. 782, 783, 785, 789, 466 P.2d 263.
3. Denial of application for conditional use permits not unreasonable. International Villages, Inc. of Amer. v. Board of Comm'rs of Jefferson Co., 224 Kan. 654, 658, 585 P.2d 999.
4. Amendment of mandamus petition adding appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2926 relates back to date of original petition. Affirmed. Martin Marietta Aggregates v. Board of Leavenworth County Comm'rs, 5 Kan. App. 2d 774, 777, 780, 781, 625 P.2d 516.
5. Discussed relative to time limits for appeals from zoning decisions. Bolser v. Zoning Board for Aubry Township, 228 Kan. 6, 9, 12, 13, 612 P.2d 563.
6. Action to test validity of conditional use permit barred because appeal not taken within thirty days after order of issuance. Amerine v. Board of Jefferson County Comm'rs, 7 Kan. App. 2d 491, 644 P.2d 477 (1982).
8. Cited; term "regulation in K.S.A. 12-712 includes actions on special use permits and provides procedures for obtaining appellate review. Sprint Print, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 238 Kan. 230, 234, 235, 708 P.2d 210 (1985).
9. Applicability of 30-day statute of limitations as appropriate limitation for actions challenging rezoning decisions considered. Landau v. City Council of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 257, 273, 767 P.2d 1290 (1989).
10. Petition in mandamus on disqualification of law firm treated as interlocutory appeal examined. Parker v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 245 Kan. 580, 586, 781 P.2d 1099 (1989).
11. Use of land for hunting preserve as agricultural use not requiring special permit determined. Corbet v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 14 Kan. App. 2d 123, 124, 783 P.2d 1310 (1990).
Sprint Print, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 708 P.2d 210 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 12ד19-2926 provides: “Any and all acts and regulations or amendments thereto provided for or authorized by this act shall be reasonable and any person having an interest in property affected may have the reasonableness of any such act, regulation or amendment thereto determined by…”
Martin Marietta v. Bd. of Leavenworth Cnty., 625 P.2d 516 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5דPlaintiff did not file a direct appeal under either K.S.A. 19-2926 (now 1980 Supp.) or K.S.A.”
Parker v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 P.2d 1099 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2דOn March 6, 1978, the plaintiff filed an amended petition which added an appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2926. The Court of Appeals said: "Given the liberality with which amendments are granted in modern practice and the fact that amendments that change the whole theory and…”
Bolser v. Zoning Bd. for Aubry Twp., 612 P.2d 563 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2ד19-2913, K.S.A. 19-2926, and K.S.A. 12-712, applicable to zoning acts of townships, counties, and cities, respectively, are virtually identical and, over the years, have been the vehicles for many appeals to this court.”
St. John v. City of Salina, 684 P.2d 464 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 19-2926 is identical in all relevant respects to 12-712 except that it applies to actions of county commissions instead of to acts of city commissions.”
Creten v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 466 P.2d 263 (Kan. 1970). · cites it 3דThe applicant then filed an action in the district court under the provisions of K.S.A. 1969 Supp. 19-2926 to have the reasonableness of the action of the board of county commissioners determined.”
Corbet v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Comm'rs., 783 P.2d 1310 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “The Corbets challenged this decision by filing suit in district court pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2926. The district court reversed the Zoning Board's decision and it is from that decision defendants appeal.”
Corbet v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Commissioners, 783 P.2d 1310 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “The Corbets challenged this decision by filing suit in district court pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2926. The district court reversed the Zoning Board’s decision and it is from that decision defendants appeal.”
Int'l Villages, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 585 P.2d 999 (Kan. 1978). “The appeal to the district court was taken pursuant to K.S.A. 19-2926 which provides: “Any and all acts and regulations provided for or authorized by this act shall be reasonable and any person having an interest in property affected may have the reasonableness of any such act…”
Amerine v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 644 P.2d 477 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “K.S.A. 19-2926 also speaks of “acts and regulations” and limits the time in which to bring an action against the county commissioners to test the reasonableness of any such act or regulation to a period of thirty days after the decision has been made.”
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.