Home >> Statutes >> Back

Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

26-501. Eminent domain procedure; venue. (a) The procedure for exercising eminent domain, as set forth in K.S.A. 26-501 through 26-518 and K.S.A. 26-501a and 26-501b, and amendments thereto, shall be followed in all eminent domain proceedings.

(b) The proceedings shall be brought by filing a verified petition in the district court of the county in which the real estate is situated, except if it be an entire tract situated in two or more counties, the proceedings may be brought in any county in which any tract or parts thereof is situated.

(c) For the purposes of the eminent domain procedure act, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning, the following terms shall have the following respective meanings:

(1) "Municipality" means city, county or unified government.

(2) "Taking" means the use by any authorized entity of the power of eminent domain to acquire any interest in private real property.

History: L. 1963, ch. 234, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 192, § 5; July 1, 2007.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Venue provisions of code of civil procedure, see 60-601(a).

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Survey of the law of damages, David Prager, 12 K.L.R. 204 (1963).


1. Proceedings not judicial in nature until appeal is filed; injunction landowner's relief. Urban Renewal Agency v. Decker, 197 Kan. 157, 415 P.2d 373.

2. Public utility, in absence of bad faith, fraud or abuse of discretion, may determine amount of land needed to be taken for its lawful purposes. Shelor v. Western Power & Gas Co., 202 Kan. 428, 449 P.2d 591.

3. Failure of city to comply with statutory duties (K.S.A. 13-1019, 13-1020) does not preclude aggrieved property owner from bringing inverse condemnation action on implied contract. Lux v. City of Topeka, 204 Kan. 179, 181, 183, 460 P.2d 541.

4. Eminent domain procedure prescribed under this and succeeding section; K.S.A. 68-413 merely designates interests which highway commission may acquire. State Highway Commission v. Moore, 204 Kan. 502, 504, 464 P.2d 188.

5. Tract of land having leasehold interest dismissed from condemnation proceeding; lessee's rights. State Highway Commission v. Bullard, 208 Kan. 558, 559, 560, 493 P.2d 196.

6. Eminent domain statute contains no specific provision for allowance of attorney fees and expenses of litigation, other than court costs. Gault v. Board of County Commissioners, 208 Kan. 578, 493 P.2d 238.

7. Statute contains no authority for allowance of attorney's fee. Schwartz v. Western Power & Gas Co., Inc., 208 Kan. 844, 847, 849, 494 P.2d 1113.

8. Constitutionality of eminent domain procedure cannot be raised where question moot. Thompson v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 208 Kan. 869, 870, 494 P.2d 1092.

9. This and succeeding sections cited in construing section (K.S.A. 12-811) concerning purchase of corporate utility plant on expiration of franchise. City of Kiowa v. Central Telephone & Utilities Corporation, 213 Kan. 169, 172, 515 P.2d 795.

10. Action instituted hereunder; provision for attorney fees under K.S.A. 26-509 remedial; applied to actions pending. Fellers v. State Highway Commission, 214 Kan. 630, 631, 522 P.2d 341.

11. Act applied; injunction proceeding against electric utility; no abuse of discretion; trial court's findings reviewed and affirmed. Concerned Citizens, United, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 215 Kan. 218, 226, 523 P.2d 755.

12. Proceeding in nature of inverse condemnation; landownership jury question; verdict upheld. Wittke v. Kusel, 215 Kan. 403, 524 P.2d 774.

13. Proceedings hereunder not forum for litigation of right of exercise of eminent domain or extent thereof. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Winn, 227 Kan. 101, 103, 106, 605 P.2d 125.

14. Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of specific value of leasehold interest but allowing evidence thereof as factor in arriving at value. City of Manhattan v. Kent, 228 Kan. 513, 618 P.2d 1180.

15. District court without jurisdiction to enlarge appeal period of K.S.A. 26-508. City of Kansas City v. Crestmoore Downs, Inc., 7 Kan. App. 2d 515, 518, 644 P.2d 494 (1982).

16. Condemnor allowed reasonable discretion to determine necessity for taking of land for lawful corporate purposes. Steele v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 232 Kan. 855, 856, 862, 659 P.2d 217 (1983).

17. Proceedings hereunder not forum for litigation over right to exercise eminent domain or extent thereof. In re Condemnation of Land for State Highway Purposes, 235 Kan. 676, 678, 680, 683 P.2d 247 (1984).

18. Condemnation proceeding does not provide forum for litigating right to exercise eminent domain or extent thereof. Murray v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 239 Kan. 25, 716 P.2d 540 (1986).

19. Dismissal without prejudice for procedural reasons followed immediately by new proceeding as not constituting abandonment (K.S.A. 26-507) examined. Board of Osborne County Comm'rs v. Kulich, 245 Kan. 107, 774 P.2d 980 (1989).

20. Allocation of condemnation award between long-term lessee and landowners examined. City of Topeka v. Estate of Mays, 245 Kan. 546, 549, 781 P.2d 721 (1989).

21. Cited in holding mailing notices of appeal not jurisdictional (K.S.A. 26-508), but responsibility for mailing falls on appealing party. City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, 253 Kan. 434, 436, 855 P.2d 956 (1993).

22. Whether Kansas storage tank act preempts eminent domain statutes regarding property contamination cleanup costs examined. City of Olathe v. Stott, 253 Kan. 687, 688, 861 P.2d 1287 (1993).

23. City condemnation of water rights for city water supply; water rights included within definition of "land"; application for change of waters use under K.S.A. 82a-708b. Sullivan v. City of Ulysses, 23 Kan. App. 2d 502, 505, 932 P.2d 456 (1997).

24. Statutory defects voiding condemnation proceeding may be raised before or after appeal of award. City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 Kan. 534, 540, 939 P.2d 926 (1997).

25. County has power of eminent domain under home rule to condemn real estate for industrial or commercial development. General Building Contr. LLC v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 275 Kan. 525, 66 P.3d 873 (2003).

26. Condemnation hearing not forum to litigate right to exercise eminent domain or to determine extent of right. Miller v. Bartle, 283 Kan. 108, 113, 150 P.3d 1282 (2007).

27. Cited; school district entitled to use eminent domain for reversionary interest in school property. Young Partners v. U.S.D. No. 214, 284 Kan. 397, 410, 411, 160 P.3d 830 (2007).

28. Cited in discussion on the sequential order of parties in eminent domain proceedings. Miller v. Glacier Development Co., 284 Kan. 476, 499, 500, 161 P.3d 730 (2007).

29. Mentioned in upholding eminent domain proceeding by telephone company; injunctive relief denied. Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 286 Kan. 7, 28, 29, 180 P.3d 571 (2008).

30. Mentioned; zoning case alleging constitutional and state law violations; county granted summary judgment. Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1280 (2008).

31. Appeal of denial of motion to stay eminent domain jury trial, district court did not lose jurisdiction. Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 200 P.3d 467 (2009).

32. Additional evidence may be taken upon appeal from appraisers' award. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).

33. Public wholesale water supply district held to have power to condemn water rights; ripeness and standing discussed. Shipe v. Public Wholesale Water Supply Dist. No. 25, 289 Kan. 160, 210 P.3d 105 (2009).

34. Administrative ordinance not subject to initiative and referendum; principles discussed whether ordinance administrative or legislative. McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391, 212 P.3d 184 (2009).

35. Court disapproves prior state case law that fails to provide just compensation for property damaged for public use. Estate of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 289 Kan. 554, 215 P.3d 561 (2009).

36. School district's purchase of land under threat of condemnation; under facts, seller not granted repurchase rights. Knop v. Gardner Edgerton U.S.D. No. 231, 41 Kan. App. 2d 698, 205 P.3d 755 (2009).

37. A condemnation proceeding instituted under this statute does not provide a forum for litigation over the right to exercise eminent domain or to determine the extent of said right. Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson Co. v. Prairie Center Dev., 304 Kan. 603, 614, 375 P.3d 304 (2016).

 | Next

  A Summary of Special Sessions in Kansas
  Bill Brief for Senate Bill No. 1
  Bill Brief for House Bill No. 2001

  7/09/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2023 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

Session Laws

Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department