Cities of third class; government

15-101. Cities of third class; government. All municipal corporations of the territory or state of Kansas, heretofore organized as cities, towns, or villages, containing not more than two thousand inhabitants (and not heretofore organized as cities of the second class), including cities of the third class organized in accordance with the provisions of the act of which this is amendatory, and including also all unincorporated towns (without regard to their population) which may now or hereafter be constituted a county seat of any county, shall be cities of the third class, and shall be governed by the provisions of this act; and all rights and privileges accrued under and by virtue of, or provided by, any act of the legislature of the territory or of the state of Kansas, before the day on which this act shall take effect, to any such municipal corporation, are hereby confirmed and preserved to such corporation, and the citizens thereof, respectively. History: L. 1871, ch. 60, § 1; L. 1886, ch. 66, § 1; L. 1917, ch. 114, § 1; May 26; R.S. 1923, § 15-101. Source or Prior Law: L. 1869, ch. 26, § 1. Law Review and Bar Journal References: Municipal corporations, N. K. Kittrie, 1 K.L.R. 258, 264, 267, 270 (1952). Proposed code of municipal law, N. K. Kittrie, 3 K.L.R. 221, 231 (1955). "Home Rule in a Nutshell," Sandra Craig McKenzie, 48 K.L.R. 1005 (2000). Attorney General's Opinions: Incompatability of officers doctrine; city councilman serving as fire chief in city of third class. 82-106. Husband and wife serving on five-member board; definition of meeting. 87-45. Procedure to dissolve city of third class. 2001-50. Statute does not require or allow downward reclassification of a city based on population loss. 2024-8. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. City incorporated under special act; extension of boundaries held void. A.&N. Rld. Co. v. Maquilkin, Sheriff, 12 Kan. 301, 303. Questioned: State v. Pauley, 83 Kan. 456, 466, 112 P. 141. 2. General law did not ratify void acts under special charter. A.& N. Rld. Co. v. Maquilkin, Sheriff, 12 Kan. 301, 303. Questioned: State v. Pauley, 83 Kan. 456, 466, 112 P. 141. 3. Act changed incorporated towns to cities of third class. West v. City of Columbus, 20 Kan. 633, 636. 4. Change of corporate name in bringing city hereunder considered. West v. City of Columbus, 20 Kan. 633, 636. 5. Act creating second-class city, void: held de facto city. Back v. Carpenter, 29 Kan. 349. 6. City authorities entitled to control of land dedicated for park. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey Co., 40 Kan. 92, 94, 95, 19 P. 325. 7. County commissioner cannot recover possession of park in city. Hurd v. Comm'rs of Harvey Co., 40 Kan. 92, 94, 95, 19 P. 325. 8. Under L. 1877, ch. 190, county commissioners could vacate streets and alleys. Eudora v. Hartig, 68 Kan. 742, 743, 744, 75 P. 1113. 9. Cited in case involving false arrest and malicious prosecution. Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 96, 468 P.2d 269. 10. Cited; methods for determining population to meet requirements as city of second class (K.S.A. 14-101) examined. Bockhaus v. City of Halstead, 242 Kan. 504, 505, 748 P.2d 870 (1988). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026