77-606. In accordance with K.S.A. 77-603 and amendments thereto, this act establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.
History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 6; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 3; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The New Kansas Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review Acts," David L. Ryan, 54 J.K.B.A. 53, 64, 66 (1985).
"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 31, 37 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; judicial review unavailable where party fails to exhaust administrative remedies as required by K.S.A. 77-607, 77-612. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 241 Kan. 744, 749, 751, 740 P.2d 585 (1987).
2. Scope of review in workers compensation cases (K.S.A. 44-556, 77-618, 77-621) determined. Reeves v. Equipment Service Industries, Inc., 245 Kan. 165, 172, 777 P.2d 765 (1989).
3. Act is exclusive means for judicial review of agency actions unless the agency is specifically exempted. Kansas Sunset Assocs. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 16 Kan. App. 2d 1, 3, 818 P.2d 797 (1991).
4. Whether act was plaintiff's exclusive remedy in multicount action resulting from administrative license suspension examined. Lindenman v. Umscheid, 255 Kan. 610, 618, 875 P.2d 964 (1994).
5. Petition for judicial review not in compliance with K.S.A. 77-614 sufficiently amended by oral averments at initial hearing (concurring opinion). Karns v. Kansas Bd. of Agriculture, 22 Kan. App. 2d 739, 750, 923 P.2d 78 (1996).
6. Exclusive remedy for review of motor carrier decision is under Kansas Act for Judicial Review (KJRA). Midwest Crane & Rigging, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 38 Kan. App. 2d 269, 271, 163 P.3d 1244 (2007).
7. Sexual predator treatment program participant challenges lack of formal disciplinary procedure, KJRA held applicable, not K.S.A. 60-1501 or 60-1701. Williams v. DesLauriers, 38 Kan. App. 2d 629, 635, 172 P.3d 42 (2007).
8. Cited; appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking district court action; appeal dismissed. Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 287 Kan. 749, 755, 199 P.3d 781 (2009).
9. Cited; developmentally disabled adult's medicaid benefits terminated; exhaustion of state proceedings held non-applicable to remedial proceedings. Brown ex rel. Brown v. Day, 555 F.3d 882, 886 (2009).
10. 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).
11. Breach of contract claims against state agency must be brought under Kansas act for judicial review and civil enforcement of agency actions. 10 th Street Medical v. State, 42 Kan. App. 2d 249, 210 P.3d 670 (2009).