K.S.A. » Chapter 66
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 66-176 (2026)

Damages for violations; attorney fees

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

66-176. Damages for violations; attorney fees. Any public utility or common carrier which violates any of the provisions of law for the regulation of public utilities or common carriers shall forfeit, for every offense, to the person, company or corporation aggrieved thereby, the actual damages sustained by the party aggrieved, together with the costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees, to be fixed by the court. If an appeal is taken from the judgment or any part thereof, it shall be the duty of the appellate court to include in the judgment additional reasonable attorney fees for services in the appellate court or courts.

History: R.S. 1923, 66-176; L. 1995, ch. 36, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 8× “(10) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO ASSESS TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST PRINTUP AND RED BALL AS PART OF THE PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD? *357 Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in not assessing treble damages pursuant to K.S.A. 66-176, which provides: "Any public utility or…”
Grindsted Prods., Inc. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 901 P.2d 20 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 21× “Grindsted argues that a claim for damages under K.S.A. 66-176 need not be first determined by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC).”
Jp Morgan Trust Co. Nat. v. Mid-Am. Pipeline, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (D. Kan. 2006). · cites it 10× “This claim alleges that the legislature has provided Farmland with a private right for a violation of this law under K.S.A. § 66-176. Farmland’s fifth claim is a claim for civil conspiracy which alleges that Mid-America, Texaco, and the ONEOK entities combined to unlawfully…”
Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc., 136 P.3d 428 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 7× “55-1210(c)(3) and K.S.A. 66-176. Whether the trial court had authority to impose attorney fees under a particular statute is a question of law over which the court has unlimited review.”
Kearney v. Kansas Pub. Serv. Co., 665 P.2d 757 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 9× “The Kearneys have cross-appealed, claiming the court erred in refusing to grant treble damages under K.S.A. 66-176 and in refusing to grant prejudgment interest.”
United Cities Gas Co. v. Brock Expl. Co., 984 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 17× “Plaintiff predicates its claim on K.S.A. 66-176. This statute provides: Damages for violation; attorney fees.”
Rothwell v. Werner Enter., Inc., 859 F. Supp. 470 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 17× “Defendants farther seek summary judgment on plaintiffs claim under K.S.A. 66-176 on the theory that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations (Doc.”
United Cities Gas Co. v. Brock Expl. Co., 995 F. Supp. 1284 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 11× “For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that: (1) plaintiff may maintain a cause of action under K.S.A. 66-176; (2) genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to the causation and amount of plaintiffs damages; (8) plaintiff has no right to prejudgment interest;…”
W. Kansas Express, Inc. v. Dugan Truck Line, Inc., 720 P.2d 1132 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs requested three times their actual damages, the costs of the suit, and a reasonable attorney fee pursuant to K.S.A. 66-176. Defendant moved to dismiss contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ claim and that the petition failed to state a…”
Martin v. MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 1304 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 5× “Motion to Amend Pretrial Order In juxtaposition to plaintiffs’ motion in limine in which they seek to preclude evidence of the Pipeline Safety Act, plaintiffs in their motion to amend the pretrial order seek to add a claim for treble damages, plus costs and attorneys fees,…”
Smith v. Printup, 938 P.2d 1261 (Kan. 1997). “The court’s holding that treble damages under K.S.A. 66-176 are unavailable in this case is affirmed and becomes the law of the case upon remand.”
Jahnke v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 353 P.3d 455 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “” K.S.A. 66-176. We held that a plain reading of the statute indicated the legislature’s intent to create, on behalf of “any person or corporation” injured as a direct result of a common carrier’s violation of provisions of law regulating common carriers, an individual right of…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.