K.S.A. » Chapter 77
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-521 (2026)

Intervention

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

77-521. Intervention. (a) The presiding officer shall grant a petition for intervention if:

(1) The petition is submitted in writing to the presiding officer, with copies served upon all parties named in the presiding officer's notice of the hearing, at least three business days before the hearing;

(2) the petition states facts demonstrating that the petitioner's legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities or other legal interests may be substantially affected by the proceeding or that the petitioner qualifies as an intervener under any provision of law; and

(3) the presiding officer determines that the interests of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings will not be impaired by allowing the intervention.

(b) The presiding officer may grant a petition for intervention at any time upon determining that the intervention sought is in the interests of justice and will not impair the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.

(c) If a petitioner qualifies for intervention, the presiding officer may impose conditions upon the intervener's participation in the proceedings, either at the time that intervention is granted or at any subsequent time. Conditions may include:

(1) Limiting the intervener's participation to designated issues in which the intervener has a particular interest demonstrated by the petition;

(2) limiting the intervener's use of discovery, cross-examination and other procedures so as to promote the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings; and

(3) requiring two or more interveners to combine their presentations of evidence and argument, cross-examination, discovery and other participation in the proceedings.

(d) The presiding officer, at least one business day before the hearing, shall issue an order granting or denying each pending petition for intervention, specifying any conditions and briefly stating the reasons for the order. The presiding officer may modify the order at any time, stating the reasons for the modification. The presiding officer shall promptly give notice of an order granting, denying or modifying intervention to the petitioner for intervention and to all parties.

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 21; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 10; L. 2016, ch. 63, § 3; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. KCC did not abuse discretion by allowing pipelines to intervene in natural gas litigation. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 258 Kan. 796, 846, 908 P.2d 1276 (1995).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC's order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC's protective order so seriously impedes CURB's participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB's statutory role as…”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018). “CFC complains that it was prevented from deposing Bank Commissioner *1132 Thull who signed the Declaration and that the presiding officer Splichal imputed a state of mind to Thull without giving CFC the opportunity to cross-examine Thull.”
Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S. Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 908 P.2d 1276 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 77-521(b) allows the KCC discretion to grant a petition for intervention upon a determination that the intervention sought is in the interests of justice and will not impair the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.”
Farmland Indus., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 971 P.2d 1213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). “We concluded that nothing in the record warranted depriving CURB of information available to other parties to the proceedings.”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC’s order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC’s protective order so seriously impedes CURB’S participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB’S statutory role as…”
— K.S.A. § 77-521(a) — 1 case
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018). “CFC complains that it was prevented from deposing Bank Commissioner *1132 Thull who signed the Declaration and that the presiding officer Splichal imputed a state of mind to Thull without giving CFC the opportunity to cross-examine Thull.”
— K.S.A. § 77-521(b) — 1 case
Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S. Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 908 P.2d 1276 (Kan. 1995). “K.S.A. 77-521(b) allows the KCC discretion to grant a petition for intervention upon a determination that the intervention sought is in the interests of justice and will not impair the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.”
— K.S.A. § 77-521(c) — 2 cases
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC's order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC's protective order so seriously impedes CURB's participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB's statutory role as…”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC’s order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC’s protective order so seriously impedes CURB’S participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB’S statutory role as…”
— K.S.A. § 77-521(c)(2) — 2 cases
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC's order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC's protective order so seriously impedes CURB's participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB's statutory role as…”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “Thus, we would have no basis in the record to conclude that the KCC’s order was supported by substantial evidence. MERITS CURB argues that the KCC’s protective order so seriously impedes CURB’S participation in the proceedings that it interferes with CURB’S statutory role as…”
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.