66-118b.
Same; petition for reconsideration; order; time for filing appeal.
No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any party unless such party shall petition for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 77-529 and amendments thereto, except that the commission shall have 30 days to issue an order on reconsideration. No party shall, in any court, urge or rely upon any ground not set forth in the petition. An order made after reconsideration, abrogating, changing or modifying the original order or decision, shall have the same force and effect as an original order or decision, including the obligation to file a petition for reconsideration, as provided in this section, as a condition precedent to filing an action for review thereof. The time for filing an appeal of any order or decision in a proceeding shall run from the date that all petitions for reconsideration in such proceeding have been denied or such petitions for reconsideration are deemed denied pursuant to subsection (b) of K.S.A. 77-529 and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 1929, ch. 220, § 2; L. 1970, ch. 268, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 285, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 116; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 226; L. 1989, ch. 283, § 23; L. 1995, ch. 5, § 2; L. 1997, ch. 132, § 3; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Peoples Nat. Gas Div. of N. Nat. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 644 P.2d 999 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “K.S.A. 66-118b in part provides: “No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any party unless such party shall make application for a rehearing as herein provided.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 629 P.2d 1174 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Since the Commission’s written order of December 23, 1980, which was mailed December 30, 1980, modified its previous oral ruling, SWB on January 9, 1981, filed with the Commission an application for rehearing pursuant to K.S.A. 66-118b, which was denied January 12, 1981.”
Williams Nat. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 52 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 66-118b. The question is whether WNG was required to file a petition for reconsideration of the third KCC order issued in this case.”
In Re Application of Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 685 P.2d 304 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “As a preliminary matter, both SWB and KCC contend this issue is not properly before the court because ATT-IS has failed to meet the specificity requirement of K.S.A. 66-118b. That statute provides in relevant part: “No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the…”
W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 740 P.2d 585 (Kan. 1987).
· cites it 3× “) K.S.A. 66-118b sets forth the jurisdictional requirement that a party dissatisfied with an order or decision of the KCC must file a motion for rehearing, stating: “66-118b.”
W. Resources, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 42 P.3d 162 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “They contend the KCC’s evaluation of the competing studies was inadequate and the KCC improperly ignored criticisms of Majoros’ study.”
Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 440 P.2d 660 (Kan. 1968).
· cites it 2× “" Pursuant to K.S.A. 66-118b, Natural Gas, Cities Service and Northern Natural filed applications for rehearing, and the latter two companies sought orders staying the operation of the commission's order.”
Grindsted Prods., Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 937 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1997).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 66-118b provides that “[n]o cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the [KCC] shall accrue in any court to any party unless such party shall petition for reconsideration .”
Kansas Indus. Consumers v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 42 P.3d 110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 66-118b provides that a party seeking review of a KCC order must petition for reconsideration of the order in accordance with K.”
In Re Application of Strother Field Airport, 263 P.3d 182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In rendering its decision, the panel relied upon K.S.A. 66-118b, which states that a party challenging an order from the Kansas Corporation Commission may not rely upon a ground not set forth in the petition for reconsideration, and the requirement in K.”
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 943 P.2d 494 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Issues Preserved for Appeal Before turning to the particulars of this litigation, we first must consider the contention of the KCC and SWBT that we lack jurisdiction to consider some of the issues raised by CURB because its petition for reconsideration does not comply with the…”
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.