66-118a.
Review proceedings; court of jurisdiction; parties; transfer to proper court.
(a) As used in this act:
(1) "Party" means any person, firm, corporation, association, municipality, taxpayer, municipal organization, mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing organization or system, public utility or common carrier interested in any matter pending before the state corporation commission or in proceedings for review of an order or decision of the commission.
(2) "Public utility" means a public utility as defined by K.S.A. 66-104 and amendments thereto.
(b) The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any agency action of the state corporation commission arising from a rate hearing requested by a public utility or requested by the state corporation commission when a public utility is a necessary party. Proceedings for review of other agency actions of the state corporation commission shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 77-609 and amendments thereto.
(c) In proceedings for review of an agency action of the commission, the state corporation commission and any public utility which participated in the agency proceeding and could be bound by the review shall be parties to the proceedings and shall have all rights and privileges granted by this act to any other party to such proceedings.
(d) A proceeding for review timely filed shall not be dismissed but shall be transferred to the proper court if it is determined to have been improperly filed (A) in the court of appeals for an action not arising from a rate hearing or (B) in the district court in accordance with K.S.A. 77-609 and amendments thereto for an action arising from a rate hearing.
History:
L. 1929, ch. 220, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 265, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 115; L. 1995, ch. 5, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Columbus Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 75 P.3d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Determining whether this court has jurisdiction requires interpretation of K.S.A. 66-118a. Interpretation of a statute poses a question of law over which this court’s review is unlimited.”
MAPCO Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 704 P.2d 989 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “K.S.A. 66-118a provides: “The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings for review of an order or decision of the state corporation commission arising from a rate hearing requested by a public utility or requested by the state corporation commission when…”
In Re Application of Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 685 P.2d 304 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 5× “K.S.A. 66-118a states in pertinent part: “The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings for review of an order or decision of the state corporation commission arising from a rate hearing requested by a public utility or requested by the state corporation…”
Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 720 P.2d 1063 (Kan. 1986).
· cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 66-118a provides that the Court of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings for review of an order or decision of the State Corporation Commission arising from a rate hearing when a public utility is a necessary party.”
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 2× “77-607(a), a person is entitled to judicial review of a final agency action if the person otherwise qualifies under the KJRA regarding standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the time for filing the petition for judicial review.”
W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 740 P.2d 585 (Kan. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The jurisdictional procedures to be followed in order to perfect an appeal from a KCC order are set forth in K.S.A. 66-118a through K.S.A. 66-118c. K.”
Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. State Corp. Comm'n, 595 P.2d 735 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).
“The KCC authorized part of the rate increase sought, and in its order again approved a rate schedule containing the same features deemed objectionable by Midwest in the first proceeding.”
Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 794 P.2d 1165 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The court added a cautionary note, however: “The conclusion that this court has jurisdiction in this case does not mean that all cases involving tariffs are directly appealable to this court under K.”
Kansas Pipeline P'ship v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 76 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Jurisdiction Without detailing the various dates on which various pleadings were filed, we have determined the jurisdictional filings by KPP are timely.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 29 P.3d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
“66-118Z and (2) could K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 66-118Z be applied to make the final order on UNE prices effective February 19, 1999? As we find the answer to the second question dispositive, we will answer it first.”
Kansas-Nebraska Nat. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 610 P.2d 121 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
“It is undisputed that this court has exclusive jurisdiction to review orders of the KCC involving public utility rates (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 66-118a) and that we are limited to determining whether the order is lawful or reasonable (K.”
— K.S.A. § 66-118a(b) — 20 cases
Columbus Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 75 P.3d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
“Determining whether this court has jurisdiction requires interpretation of K.S.A. 66-118a. Interpretation of a statute poses a question of law over which this court’s review is unlimited.”
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011).
“77-607(a), a person is entitled to judicial review of a final agency action if the person otherwise qualifies under the KJRA regarding standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the time for filing the petition for judicial review.”
Kansas Pipeline P'ship v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 76 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
“Jurisdiction Without detailing the various dates on which various pleadings were filed, we have determined the jurisdictional filings by KPP are timely.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 29 P.3d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
“66-118Z and (2) could K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 66-118Z be applied to make the final order on UNE prices effective February 19, 1999? As we find the answer to the second question dispositive, we will answer it first.”
— K.S.A. § 66-118a(d) — 2 cases
Columbus Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 75 P.3d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
“Determining whether this court has jurisdiction requires interpretation of K.S.A. 66-118a. Interpretation of a statute poses a question of law over which this court’s review is unlimited.”
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.