Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Judicial review of administrative decisions, Philip H. Lewis, 11 J.B.A.K. 325, 328 (1943).

1957-59 survey of constitutional and administrative law, Fred N. Six and John W. Brand, Jr., 8 K.L.R. 222, 238 (1959).

"Motor Carrier Cases Before the State Corporation Commission," Larry E. Gregg, 48 J.B.A.K. 107, 118 (1979).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Ruling of commission will stand if any evidence supports it. Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm., 132 Kan. 459, 461, 295 P. 668.

2. Cited in construction of 66-196 to 66-1,107. Pickwick Greyhound Lines v. Public Service Comm., 132 Kan. 464, 465, 295 P. 647.

3. Nature and scope of appellate review considered. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co. v. Public Service Comm., 135 Kan. 657, 661, 11 P.2d 985.

4. Order granting writ of convenience and necessity; scope of appellate review considered. In re Inland Pipe Line Co., 143 Kan. 820, 821, 57 P.2d 65.

5. District court's judgment sustaining commission's order fixing minimum rates for contract motor carriers upheld. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Corporation Comm., 150 Kan. 553, 558, 95 P.2d 554.

6. Discussed; appeals to supreme court contemplated by 66-118a. Hayward v. State Corporation Comm., 151 Kan. 1008, 1009, 1012, 101 P.2d 1041.

7. History of section discussed in determining venue of inheritance tax appeal. Freund v. Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 156 Kan. 109, 113, 131 P.2d 678.

8. Order refusing TL application made pursuant to 66-183 to 66-185, subject to review. Central Kan. Electric Co-operative Ass'n v. State Corporation Comm. et al., 165 Kan. 471, 475, 196 P.2d 212.

9. Commission's rate order broader than rate hearing notice held void. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 166 Kan. 548, 549, 203 P.2d 211.

10. Motor carrier permit; nature and scope of appellate review; power of court. Rock Island Motor Transit Co. v. State Corporation Comm., 169 Kan. 487, 493, 219 P.2d 405.

11. Mentioned; appeals from decisions of commission must strictly follow statutory procedure. City of McPherson v. State Corporation Commission, 174 Kan. 407, 409, 410, 257 P.2d 123.

12. Cited in upholding order exempting motor carrier from jurisdiction under 66-1,109. Kansas City-Leavenworth Bus Lines v. State Corporation Comm., 178 Kan. 353, 354, 286 P.2d 143.

13. Application for review resembles notice of appeal (see what is now 60-2103) not a petition (see what is now 60-208). Wichita Chamber of Commerce v. State Corporation Commission, 179 Kan. 386, 388, 295 P.2d 670.

14. Mentioned; procedure to obtain review of matter remanded considered. Stewart v. State Corporation Commission, 181 Kan. 666, 669, 313 P.2d 749.

15. District court finding commission's order unreasonable supported by evidence and upheld. Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 181 Kan. 817, 818, 823, 316 P.2d 277.

16. Discussed; petition for judicial review under 55-606 need not specify errors. Jackson v. State Corporation Commission, 183 Kan. 246, 249, 250, 326 P.2d 280.

17. Commission's order authorizing railroad to dualize station agencies held lawful and reasonable. Community of Woodston v. State Corporation Comm., 186 Kan. 747, 750, 353 P.2d 206.

18. Procedure and standards prescribed as prerequisites to granting contract carrier permits stated and applied; commission's findings upheld; permits properly granted. Class I Rail Carriers v. State Corporation Commission, 191 Kan. 201, 203, 380 P.2d 396.

19. Invalid preliminary orders of commission cannot be enjoined. State Corporation Comm. v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561, 54 S. Ct. 321, 322, 324, 78 L.Ed. 500.

20. Section held valid; remedy of appeal is permissive, not mandatory. Western Distributing Co. v. Public Service Comm., 58 F.2d 239.

21. Mentioned in discussing procedure for proper review of commission's orders. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 39, 45, 386 P.2d 515.

22. Mentioned; summary judgment not available to interpret certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 76, 79, 402 P.2d 762.

23. When combined with K.S.A. 60-206 (a) and (c) only first day of combined period is excluded. Wheat State Telephone Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 268, 270, 271, 403 P.2d 1019.

24. Scope of appellate review considered. Creason v. American Bridge, 384 F.2d 475, 478.

25. Cited in upholding commission's denial of an application to replace railway station agency by mobile agency routes. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 205 Kan. 610, 612, 623, 470 P.2d 767.

26. A public utility, which was granted leave to intervene in the commission proceedings on allegations that the applicant owns common stock in the intervenor, and expressed desire to effect merger of the companies, does not possess requisite interest to entitle it to judicial review hereunder. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 205 Kan. 838, 843, 473 P.2d 27.

27. Cited in upholding a commission order enlarging the certificate of authority of an electric public utility. Central Kansas Power Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 206 Kan. 670, 675, 482 P.2d 1.

28. Commission's order affirmed hereunder; appeal dismissed as moot when new rates superseded rates increased by order. Six Cities v. State Corporation Commission, 213 Kan. 413, 414, 516 P.2d 596.

29. Cited in holding 60-2101 (a) does not permit trial de novo in district court from order of administrative agency. Copeland v. Kansas State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 213 Kan. 741, 742, 518 P.2d 377.

30. Customers of utility companies had remedy in state courts and could not bring action in federal court; action challenging legality of late assessment charges. Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135, 1141.

31. Section applied; application timely filed. Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 222 Kan. 598, 604, 567 P.2d 1343.

32. Cited; KCC was authorized to weigh value of service more heavily than cost of service in establishing new rate schedule; judgment affirmed. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 3 Kan. App. 2d 376, 378, 595 P.2d 735.

33. Procedure before corporation commission reviewed; judicial review. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 6 Kan. App. 2d 444, 449, 629 P.2d 1174 (1981).

34. Cited; provisions herein mandatory; failure to comply grounds for dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 241 Kan. 744, 749, 740 P.2d 585 (1987).

35. Tariff properly construed in case alleging discrimination in failure to disclose and apply tariff to plaintiff manufacturer. Grindsted Products, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 262 Kan. 294, 302, 937 P.2d 1 (1997).

36. Appeals from KUSF audits are properly taken to court of appeals; KCC action on rate case expenses affirmed. Columbus Telephone Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 31 Kan. App. 2d 828, 75 P.3d 257 (2003).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov