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

K.S.A. § 66-1801 (2026)

Kansas underground utility damage prevention act

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

66-1801. Kansas underground utility damage prevention act. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas underground utility damage prevention act.

History: L. 1993, ch. 217, § 1; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Corporation commission's order upheld in levying penalty against excavator under Kansas underground utility act. Double M Constr. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 288 Kan. 268, 202 P.3d 7 (2009).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Double M Constr., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 202 P.3d 7 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Double M Constr., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 202 P.3d 7 (Kan. 2009). “66-1802(d) defines an “excavator” to be “any person who engages directly in excavation activities within the state of Kansas, but shall not include any occupant of a dwelling who: (1) Uses such dwelling as a primary residence; and (2) excavates on the premises of such dwelling.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Beachner Constr. Co., 221 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2009). “Before Beachner began construction, it called the Kansas One Call notification center pursuant to K.S.A. 66-1801 et seq. SBT was notified of the call.”
Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. APAC-Kansas, Inc., 138 P.3d 1238 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “, (SBT) for its claims of negligence under the Kansas Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act, K.S.A. 66-1801 et seq. (Act). SBT sued APAC for negligence after APAC damaged two of SBT’s telephone cables while performing excavation work.”
Kansas One-call Sys., Inc. v. State, 274 P.3d 625 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “(One-Call) appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of the State of Kansas in One-Call's suit challenging the constitutionality of the 2008 amendments in House Bill 2637 to the Kansas Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (KUUDPA), K.S.A. 66-1801 et seq.…”
Kansas One-Call Sys., Inc. v. State, 274 P.3d 625 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “(One-Call) appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court in favor of the State of Kansas in One-Call’s suit challénging the constitutionality of the 2008 amendments in House Bill 2637 to the Kansas Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (KUUDPA), K.S.A. 66-1801 etseq.…”
Foster v. USIC Locating Servs., LLC (D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “Defendant first argues that it owed no duty to plaintiff to locate and mark the buried power line at issue because, pursuant to the Pretrial Order, plaintiff’s negligence claim was based on defendant’s alleged breach under the Kansas Underground Utility Damages Prevention Act…”
Earthworkz Enter., Inc. v. USIC Locating Servs., LLC (W.D. Mo. 2021). “010 et seq; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-1801 et seq. Because of the nature of the parties’ services, it is possible—if not certain—Defendant and Plaintiff will provide services on the same projects.”
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.