Printable Format12-527.
History: L. 1968, ch. 80, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 71, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 67, § 1; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 15, § 7; July 1.
Attorney General's Opinions:
Title to facilities; agreement; compensation. 85-166.
Ownership and disposition of fire-fighting equipment subsequent to annexation of township by a city. 91-162.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Under facts, action to challenge reasonableness of rural water district's facilities required evidentiary hearing. City of DeSoto v. Consolidated Rural Water Dist. No. 6, 23 Kan. App. 2d 407, 409, 930 P.2d 624 (1997).
2. Municipal action not removable from state court to federal court. Park City v. Rural Water Dist #2, Sedgwick County, 960 F. Supp. 255, 257 (1997).
3. Cited; city not required to purchase water district assets after annexing property within district, statute held directory. Rural Water District No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kansas, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1298-1302, 1308, 1316, 1317, 1320, 1330-1333 (2009).
4. Party dissatisfied with appraisers' award under K.S.A. 12-527 has right to trial de novo on reasonableness of award. Rural Water District No. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 288 Kan. 811, 207 P.3d 1055 (2009).
5. K.S.A. 12-527 distinguished from K.S.A. 58-3509 relating to allowing dissatisfied party to institute an action. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).