Printable Format12-502.
History: L. 1929, ch. 109, § 2; Repealed, L. 1974, ch. 56, § 7; March 28.
Source or prior law:
L. 1871, ch. 60, § 92; L. 1872, ch. 102, § 3; L. 1885, ch. 97, §§ 1–3; L. 1886, ch. 66, §§ 4–7; L. 1886, ch. 69, §§ 1, 2; L. 1905, ch. 118, § 1; R.S. 1923, 12-502.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Highway in annexed territory becomes a street in city. McGrew v. Stewart, 51 Kan. 185, 189, 32 P. 896.
2. Authority to receive petitions cannot be conferred on courts. Ruland v. City of Augusta, 120 Kan. 42, 52, 242 P. 456.
3. Plats of one- and ten-acre tracts without streets cannot be annexed. Brown v. Junction City, 122 Kan. 190, 194, 251 P. 726.
4. Procedure under former acts considered. Fletcher v. Weigel, 152 Kan. 104, 106, 107, 102 P.2d 1055.
5. Private party cannot maintain action challenging validity of proceedings. Smith v. City of Emporia, 168 Kan. 187, 188, 211 P.2d 101.
6. Whether change would cause "manifest injury" is judicial question; appeal. City of Salina v. Thompson, Trustee of Mo. Pac. Rly. Co., 169 Kan. 579, 580, 582, 583, 584, 220 P.2d 147.
7. Construed; annexation of unplatted territory, limitation. City of Ottawa v. Goff, 177 Kan. 374, 375, 378, 379, 279 P.2d 293.
8. Procedure under former acts considered. State, ex rel., v. Martin, 178 Kan. 476, 479, 289 P.2d 745.
9. Action challenging validity of annexation must be brought in name of state; cannot be challenged in collateral proceeding. Fairfax Drainage District v. City of Kansas City, 190 Kan. 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 374 P.2d 35.
10. Considered and distinguished from annexation proceeding under K.S.A. 13-1602. James v. City of Pittsburg, 195 Kan. 462, 465, 466, 407 P.2d 503.
11. Referred to in holding a city lacks standing to challenge the annexation procedures of another city. City of Lenexa v. City of Olathe, 228 Kan. 773, 775, 777, 620 P.2d 1153.