K.S.A. » Chapter 26

K.S.A. § 26-501

Eminent domain procedure; venue

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

26-501. Eminent domain procedure; venue. (a) The procedure for exercising eminent domain, as set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 through 26-518 and K.S.A. 26-501a and 26-501b, and amendments thereto, shall be followed in all eminent domain proceedings.

(b) The proceedings shall be brought by filing a verified petition in the district court of the county in which the real estate is situated, except if it be an entire tract situated in two or more counties, the proceedings may be brought in any county in which any tract or parts thereof is situated.

(c) For the purposes of the eminent domain procedure act, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning, the following terms shall have the following respective meanings:

(1) "Municipality" means city, county or unified government.

(2) "Taking" means the use by any authorized entity of the power of eminent domain to acquire any interest in private real property.

History: L. 1963, ch. 234, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 192, § 5; July 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C. (2016) kan · cites it 9× “See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26-501 et seq. After hearing arguments, the district court denied the Bonhams' motion to void, concluding that WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams' easement.”
Nauheim v. City of Topeka (2019) kan · cites it 3× “They contend that since their property was acquired by a condemning authority through negotiations, this necessarily means the authority acquired it "in advance of" condemnation.”
Miller v. Bartle (2007) kan · cites it 6× “While we address most of their arguments in the resolution of this appeal, the dispositive question in this appeal is whether the district court had jurisdiction under the Eminent Domain Procedures Act (EDPA), K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., to consider the Bardes’ claims.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan · cites it 8× “Those exercising the right of eminent domain `shall exercise such right in a manner set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 to 26-516, inclusive.' K.S.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2009) kan · cites it 6× “58-3509 should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the appeal provision of an eminent domain proceeding. They reason that both rights — the right to receive fair market value and the right to receive relocation benefits — stem from the same governmental action and,…”
– GFTLenexa, LLC v. City of Lenexa – (2019) kan · cites it 2× “Such actions are governed by statute, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq. Inverse condemnation proceedings, on the other hand, are usually initiated by holders of private property 6 interests.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2011) kan · cites it 6× “3d 1282 (2007), this court had occasion to review the historical nature of an eminent domain action in this state, in conjunction with the statutory procedure for exercising eminent domain set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 et seq. Bartle noted that an eminent domain action is a special…”
City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership (1993) kan · cites it 3× “*436 The condemner relies upon selected provisions from the Eminent Domain Procedure Act, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., and upon public policy.”
Harsch v. Miller (2009) kan · cites it 2× “26-504 (direct appeal to Supreme Court of any final order under the Eminent Domain Procedure Act [EDPA], K.S.A. 26-501 et seq.). The issues on appeal, and our accompanying holdings, are as follows: 1.”
General Building Contractors, L.L.C. v. Board of Shawnee County Commissioners (2003) kan · cites it 2× “On March 19, 2002, the county filed a petition for eminent domain pursuant to K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., in Shawnee County District Court, seeking to acquire the real property owned by three parties which included General Building Contractors, L.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina (2010) kan · cites it 3× “, after the City acquired, through the power of eminent domain, see K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., the Fricks’ real property at 1056 E.”
Condemnation of Land for State Highway Purposes v. Stranger Valley Land Co. (2005) kan · cites it 3× “Analysis Procedures for eminent domain proceedings, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., are controlled by statute.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 26-501(a) — 6 cases
Nauheim v. City of Topeka (2019) kan “They contend that since their property was acquired by a condemning authority through negotiations, this necessarily means the authority acquired it "in advance of" condemnation.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan “Those exercising the right of eminent domain `shall exercise such right in a manner set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 to 26-516, inclusive.' K.S.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2011) kan “3d 1282 (2007), this court had occasion to review the historical nature of an eminent domain action in this state, in conjunction with the statutory procedure for exercising eminent domain set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 et seq. Bartle noted that an eminent domain action is a special…”
City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership (1993) kan “*436 The condemner relies upon selected provisions from the Eminent Domain Procedure Act, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., and upon public policy.”
Condemnation of Land for State Highway Purposes v. Stranger Valley Land Co. (2005) kan “Analysis Procedures for eminent domain proceedings, K.S.A. 26-501 et seq., are controlled by statute.”
— K.S.A. § 26-501(b) — 5 cases
Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C. (2016) kan “See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26-501 et seq. After hearing arguments, the district court denied the Bonhams' motion to void, concluding that WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams' easement.”
Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC (2007) kan “Those exercising the right of eminent domain `shall exercise such right in a manner set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 to 26-516, inclusive.' K.S.”
Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (2008) kan
Knop v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231 (2009) kanctapp
Knop v. GARDNER EDGERTON UNIFIED SCH. DIST. (2009) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 26-501(c)(2) — 2 cases
Water District No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Center Development, L.L.C. (2016) kan “See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 26-501 et seq. After hearing arguments, the district court denied the Bonhams' motion to void, concluding that WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams' easement.”
Creegan v. State (2017) kan
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.