77-621. Scope of review. (a) Except to the extent that this act or another statute provides otherwise:
(1) The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity; and
(2) the validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of judicial review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken.
(b) The court shall make a separate and distinct ruling on each material issue on which the court's decision is based.
(c) The court shall grant relief only if it determines any one or more of the following:
(1) The agency action, or the statute or rule and regulation on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied;
(2) the agency has acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by any provision of law;
(3) the agency has not decided an issue requiring resolution;
(4) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;
(5) the agency has engaged in an unlawful procedure or has failed to follow prescribed procedure;
(6) the persons taking the agency action were improperly constituted as a decision-making body or subject to disqualification;
(7) the agency action is based on a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported to the appropriate standard of proof by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this act; or
(8) the agency action is otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
(d) For purposes of this section, "in light of the record as a whole" means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from such finding as well as all of the relevant evidence in the record, compiled pursuant to K.S.A. 77-620, and amendments thereto, cited by any party that supports such finding, including any determinations of veracity by the presiding officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witness and the agency's explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of fact. In reviewing the evidence in light of the record as a whole, the court shall not reweigh the evidence or engage in de novo review.
(e) In making the foregoing determinations, due account shall be taken by the court of the rule of harmless error.
History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 21; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 28; 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, 68 (1985).
"Administrative Law: The Creation of a Presumption of Unreviewability in Cases of Administrative Inaction [Heckler v. Chaney, 105 S.Ct. 1649 (1985)], Warren F. Frost, 25 W.L.J. 347, 348 (1986).
"Recent Developments in Kansas Oil and Gas Law (1983-1988)," Phillip E. DeLaTorre, 37 K.L.R. 907, 951 (1989).
"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 25, 36 (1995).
"A Species Unto Themselves: Professional Disciplinary Actions," Mary Feighny and Camille Nohe, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 6, 29 (2002).
"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Ed., J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 28, No. 5, 18 (2005).
"Coal-Fired Power Plants, Greenhouse Gases, and State Statutory Substantial Endangerment Provisions: Climate Change Comes to Kansas," Robert L. Glicksman, 56 K.L.R. 517 (2008).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Secretary may deny air quality permit when determination is made that particular emissions presents substantial endangerment. 2007-31.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; scope of judicial review on appeal from KCC ratemaking order in re Wolf Creek nuclear facility examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 239 Kan. 483, 497, 720 P.2d 1063 (1986).
2. Cited; prohibitions against deductions from employee's wages except as permitted by K.S.A. 44-319 examined. Excel Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 12 Kan. App. 2d 417, 419, 747 P.2d 179 (1987).
3. Cited; evidence to establish permanent partial work disability (K.S.A. 44-510e) examined. Thompson v. Harold Thompson Trucking, 12 Kan. App. 2d 449, 461, 748 P.2d 430 (1987).
4. Cited; scope of review, fracture treatment as consideration in formulating oil and gas proration examined. Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 242 Kan. 470, 473, 749 P.2d 21 (1988).
5. Cited; burden upon AT&T to prove invalidity of assessment on out-state repairs noted. In re Tax Appeal of AT&T Technologies, Inc., 242 Kan. 554, 564, 749 P.2d 1033 (1988).
6. On disputed fact issues in workers compensation cases, rule on appellate court's scope of review has not changed. Williams v. Excel Corp., 12 Kan. App. 2d 662, 664, 756 P.2d 1104 (1988).
7. Where review of order suspending driver's license sought, licensee carries burden of proof at de novo hearing. Angle v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 12 Kan. App. 2d 756, 761, 758 P.2d 226 (1988).
8. Standard of review to be applied by district courts in workers compensation cases (K.S.A. 77-618, 44-556) examined. Monroe v. General Motors Corp., 13 Kan. App. 2d 460, 462, 773 P.2d 683 (1989).
9. Cited; KCC order amending basic proration order for Kansas Hugoton gas field to allow infill drilling examined. Southwest Kan. Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 244 Kan. 157, 769 P.2d 1 (1989).
10. Supreme Court's review of Kansas racing commission's decisions limited to whether acts arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 244 Kan. 343, 364, 365, 770 P.2d 423 (1989).
11. Board of review's decision regarding compensation benefits to employee discharged for filing off-the-job drug usage test examined. National Gypsum Co. v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 244 Kan. 678, 682, 772 P.2d 786 (1989).
12. Unemployment benefits dependent on misconduct proscribed by statute (K.S.A. 44-706) rather than violation of employer's rule examined. City of Wichita v. Employment Security Bd., 13 Kan. App. 2d 729, 730, 779 P.2d 41 (1989).
13. Corporation soliciting shareholders' group to purchase Canadian lottery tickets and share winnings as constituting securities sales examined. 537721 Ontario, Inc. v. Mays, 14 Kan. App. 2d 1, 2, 780 P.2d 1126 (1989).
14. Appellate scope of review in workers compensation cases (K.S.A. 44-556) determined. Reeves v. Equipment Service Industries, Inc., 245 Kan. 165, 176, 777 P.2d 765 (1989).
15. Taxable status under K.S.A. 79-201a Second of property owned to produce revenue for financing governmental function (airport, K.S.A. 27-315 et seq.) examined. Tri-County Public Airport Auth. v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 245 Kan. 301, 304, 777 P.2d 843 (1989).
16. NCAA as educational institution exempt from payment of sales taxes on purchases (K.S.A. 79-3606(c)) examined. NCAA v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 245 Kan. 553, 556, 781 P.2d 726 (1989).
17. Board of tax appeals order whether multi-state business is unitary for tax purposes subject to review hereunder. In re Tax Appeal of A.M. Castle & Co., 245 Kan. 739, 741, 783 P.2d 1286 (1989).
18. Use of land for hunting preserve as agricultural use (K.S.A. 19-2921) not requiring special permit examined. Corbet v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 14 Kan. App. 2d 123, 127, 783 P.2d 1310 (1990).
19. Scope of review of administrative decision subject to act as established by K.S.A. 77-621 noted. Buchanan v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 14 Kan. App. 2d 169, 171, 788 P.2d 285 (1990).
20. Judicial review of county appraiser's discretion in valuing individual items of personal property examined. In re Tax Appeal of Director of Property Valuation, 14 Kan. App. 2d 348, 351, 791 P.2d 1383 (1989).
21. Appellate court's standard of review in controversies arising under professional negotiations act (K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq.) examined. U.S.D. No. 352 v. NEA-Goodland, 246 Kan. 137, 139, 785 P.2d 993 (1990).
22. Court's scope of review of agency actions set forth and applied. Mulford v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 14 Kan. App. 2d 386, 790 P.2d 957 (1990).
23. Scope of Court of Appeals review noted; jurisdiction to review KCC actions arising from rate hearings examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 14 Kan. App. 2d 527, 531, 794 P.2d 1165 (1990).
24. Board of tax appeal's order taxing city-owned residence, lack of authority to investigate property not in dispute examined. In re Application of Park Comm'rs for Ad Valorem Tax Exemption, 14 Kan. App. 2d 777, 782, 799 P.2d 505 (1990).
25. Nonexempt tax status of city's royalty interest in oil and gas lease on city-owned property examined. City of Liberal v. Seward County, 247 Kan. 609, 611, 802 P.2d 568 (1990).
26. Order of state civil service board regarding dismissal for conduct constituting per se cause for discipline (K.S.A. 75-2949f) examined. Sanstra v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 15 Kan. App. 2d 148, 149, 804 P.2d 1007 (1991).
27. Review of decision of university residence committee on student's application for resident status examined. Peck v. University Residence Committee of Kansas State Univ., 248 Kan. 450, 807 P.2d 652 (1991).
28. Authority of Board of Healing Arts to regulate the practice of medicine, review of board's decisions examined. Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 591, 808 P.2d 1355 (1991).
29. Inadequacy of notice by medicaid agency of major policy changes affecting reimbursability of claims examined. Riverside Hospital, Inc. v. State Department of SRS, 248 Kan. 609, 611, 808 P.2d 1348 (1991).
30. Act for judicial review noted as inapplicable to agency actions governed by open records act (K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.). State Dept. of SRS v. Public Employee Relations Board, 249 Kan. 163, 165, 815 P.2d 66 (1991).
31. Review of decision of KDHR secretary in a prohibited practices case by trial de novo. Garden City Educators' Ass'n v. U.S.D. No. 457, 15 Kan. App. 2d 187, 192, 805 P.2d 511 (1991).
32. KCC's decision on including social club dues as charge to ratepayers held unreasonable where only evidence was contrary thereto. Greeley Gas Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 15 Kan. App. 2d 285, 290, 807 P.2d 167 (1991).
33. Review of trial court's ruling on administrative suspension of driver's license under K.S.A. 8-1001 et seq., is de novo. Podrebarac v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 15 Kan. App. 2d 383, 384, 807 P.2d 1327 (1991).
34. Nothing in act provides trial court with jurisdiction to review a decision by board of county commissioners. Justice v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 17 Kan. App. 2d 102, 105, 835 P.2d 692 (1992).
35. Review of claimed personal emergency as exception to disqualification for unemployment compensation benefits (K.S.A. 44-706) examined. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Human Resources, 17 Kan. App. 2d 272, 274, 837 P.2d 1322 (1992).
36. Noted in opinion holding current statutes (K.S.A. 22-3428 et seq.) regarding continued commitment of insanity acquittee unconstitutional; court engrafts new requirements. In re Application of Noel for Discharge Hearing, 17 Kan. App. 2d 303, 314, 838 P.2d 336 (1992).
37. Catalysts as circumstantially exempt from compensating use tax (K.S.A. 79-3602, 79-3606) examined. In re Tax Appeal of Derby Refining Co., 17 Kan. App. 2d 377, 380, 838 P.2d 354 (1992).
38. Noted in opinion that single instance of misconduct sufficient to disqualify claimant for unemployment compensation (K.S.A. 44-706). Helmick v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 17 Kan. App. 2d 444, 445, 839 P.2d 49 (1992).
39. Decision by department in independent contractor v. employer-employee situation; limitation of judicial review. Crawford v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 17 Kan. App. 2d 707, 708, 845 P.2d 703 (1992).
40. Board of tax appeals' findings regarding charitable purposes of claimant examined. Woman's Club of Topeka v. Shawnee County, 253 Kan. 175, 179, 853 P.2d 1157 (1993).
41. Appellate scope of review of Kansas racing commission licensing decisions examined. Reed v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 253 Kan. 602, 609, 860 P.2d 864 (1993).
42. Appellate court may not try case de novo or substitute its judgment for that of Board of Tax Appeals. Wolf Creek Golf Links, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 18 Kan. App. 2d 263, 264, 853 P.2d 62 (1993).
43. Cited where methods of valuation of real property for tax purposes that meet constitutional and statutory requirements examined. In re Tax Appeal of Andrews, 18 Kan. App. 2d 311, 314, 851 P.2d 1027 (1993).
44. Appellate court's evidence standard when reviewing district court's ruling in driver's license suspension cases examined. Zurawski v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 18 Kan. App. 2d 325, 327, 851 P.2d 1385 (1993).
45. Whether one must have possession of a winning lottery ticket to have a right to collect winnings examined. Fowles v. Kansas State Lottery, 254 Kan. 557, 565, 867 P.2d 357 (1994).
46. Review of Kansas water authority's water transfer order on statutory, jurisdictional and administrative procedure grounds. Water District No. 1 v. Kansas Water Authority, 19 Kan. App. 2d 236, 240, 245, 866 P.2d 1076 (1994).
47. Whether BOTA's assessment of discount rate for property appraisal was supported by substantial evidence examined. In re Tax Refund Application of Affiliated Property Services, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 247, 250, 870 P.2d 1343 (1994).
48. Whether reallocated state employee met burden in establishing invalidity of agency's action examined. Harton v. Sperry, 19 Kan. App. 2d 259, 261, 869 P.2d 752 (1994).
49. Whether real estate city acquired by forfeiture is exempt from ad valorem taxation prior to sale examined. In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wichita, 255 Kan. 838, 840, 877 P.2d 437 (1994).
50. Whether BOTA hearing fundamentally unfair where majority of voting panel members did not participate in evidentiary hearing examined. Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 430, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994).
51. Whether district court erred by granting personal property tax exemption for motor vehicles owned by native American examined. In re Tax Exemption Application of Oyler, 256 Kan. 589, 590, 595, 887 P.2d 81 (1994).
52. Cited; who should receive service and notice of petition for judicial review of agency action examined. Hale v. Substance Abuse Center East, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 569, 571, 873 P.2d 932 (1994).
53. Whether BOTA erred by using discount method to value subdivision parcels of property examined. Hixon v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., 19 Kan. App. 2d 643, 645, 875 P.2d 297 (1994).
54. Whether K.S.A. 8-1002 five-day certification requirement may be challenged at KDR administrative license suspension hearing examined. Schulz v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 19 Kan. App. 2d 665, 668, 877 P.2d 1 (1994).
55. Cited; when date of accident occurred in workers compensation case involving carpal tunnel syndrome examined. Berry v. Boeing Military Airplanes, 20 Kan. App. 2d 220, 222, 885 P.2d 1261 (1994).
56. Whether court properly applied de novo standard in reviewing workers compensation benefits determination examined. University of Kansas v. Department of Human Resources, 20 Kan. App. 2d 354, 358, 887 P.2d 1147 (1995).
57. KCC restriction of cross-examination of expert witnesses not a due process violation. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 258 Kan. 796, 817, 821, 837, 908 P.2d 1276 (1995).
58. Trial court ruling that agency secretary acted arbitrarily by disregarding presiding officer's witness credibility determination reversed. Tire Disposal Facilitators, Inc. v. State ex rel. Harder, 22 Kan. App. 2d 491, 492, 919 P.2d 362 (1996).
59. Court erred in exceeding its scope of review and in substituting its judgment for agency's. Karns v. Kansas Bd. of Agriculture, 22 Kan. App. 2d 739, 746, 923 P.2d 78 (1996).
60. Cited; Indian land excluded from boundaries of state not subject to taxation unless specifically included by treaty or act of Congress; state taxation of fee-patented Indian-owned land may be proper. In re Tax Exemption Application of Kaul, 261 Kan. 755, 765, 933 P.2d 717 (1997).
61. Appellate review of board of tax appeals decision; standard of review. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532, 538, 933 P.2d 167 (1997).
62. BOTA members replaced; previous order reversed on reconsideration upholding sales tax assessment; judicial deference due decision considered. In re Tax Appeal of Atchison Cablevision, 262 Kan. 223, 225, 936 P.2d 721 (1997).
63. 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).
64. Board's denial of application for reinstatement of license to practice medicine affirmed. Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 262 Kan. 889, 892, 941 P.2d 381 (1997).
65. Workers compensation board's finding reviewed for substantial competent evidence; uncontradicted evidence should generally be regarded as conclusive. Nance v. Harvey County, 23 Kan. App. 2d 899, 901, 931 P.2d 1245 (1997).
66. A negative finding of fact is not appealable unless bias, passion or prejudice is found. Nance v. Harvey County, 263 Kan. 542, 551, 952 P.2d 411 (1997).
67. KCC orders in which nature of consolidation changed following appellate decision erroneous and unreasonable application of law. Western Resources, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 23 Kan. App. 2d 664, 937 P.2d 964 (1997).
68. Construed and applied in challenges of KCC's approval of nonunanimous settlement agreements setting revenue requirements and rate design charges. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 24 Kan. App. 2d 172, 175, 176, 193, 943 P.2d 470 (1997).
69. BOTA order determining municipal instrumentality property being used for municipal purposes but denying exemption reversed. League of Kansas Municipalities v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 24 Kan. App. 2d 294, 297, 944 P.2d 172 (1997).
70. Under K.S.A. 44-510e(a) finding whether good faith effort made to find appropriate employment required to determine appropriate procedure for wage calculation. Copeland v. Johnson Group, Inc., 24 Kan. App. 2d 306, 311, 944 P.2d 179 (1997).
71. Kansas telecommunications act (K.S.A. 66-2001 et seq.) does not prevent a subsequent audit and earnings study. Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Bd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 264 Kan. 363, 384, 956 P.2d 685 (1998); rev'g. in part, 24 K.A. 2d 222, 238, 943 P.2d 494 (1997).
72. Substantial competent evidence justified BOTA's oil lease valuation taking post-January 1 production data into consideration. Board of Ness County Commr's v. Bankoff Oil Co., 265 Kan. 525, 527, 537, 544, 960 P.2d 1279 (1998).
73. Substantial evidence existed to support finding that dismissal of employee was not for intentional or willful misconduct. Farmers Co-op Elevator v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 25 Kan. App. 2d 567, 571, 966 P.2d 699 (1998).
74. KCC has wide discretion in method used to establish value; may use combination of methods. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 25 Kan. App. 2d 849, 971 P.2d 1213 (1999).
75. Appellate court to consider whole record in determining substantial evidence for findings. Edwards v. Klein Tools, Inc., 25 Kan. App. 2d 879, 974 P.2d 609 (1999).
76. Court may grant relief from order of Board of Tax Appeals based on requirements of section. In re Tax Appeal of Univ. of Kan. School of Medicine, 266 Kan. 737, 748, 973 P.2d 176 (1999).
77. In granting summary judgment to defendant city, trial court indirectly effected a K.S.A. 77-621 examination of BOTA order, which summary judgment is affirmed. Bishop v. City of Winona, 267 Kan. 653, 657, 983 P.2d 861 (1999).
78. SRS in implementing K.A.R. 40-6-109 must consider that the 1993 federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act amendments to the Medicaid Act do not apply to trusts established prior to the effective date of such amendments. Martin v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 26 Kan. App. 2d 511, 988 P.2d 1217 (1999).
79. BOTA reversed, business operations declared unitary in nature. In re Tax Appeal of Broce Construction Co., Inc., 27 Kan. App. 2d 967, 9 P.3d 1281 (2000).
80. Court must presume administrative agency's finding of dismissal without cause as valid. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Human Resources, 28 Kan. App. 2d 229, 13 P.3d 358 (2000).
81. Commission's action is supported by substantial competent evidence. Citizens' Utility Ratepayer Board v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 28 Kan. App. 2d 313, 16 P.3d 319 (2000).
82. SRS determination that appellant was not entitled to Medicaid assistance affirmed. Fisher v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 271 Kan. 167, 21 P.3d 509 (2001).
83. Insurance carrier not subject to assessment for workers compensation as its policy provided indemnity coverage only. Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Kansas Ins. Comm'r, 271 Kan. 253, 21 P.3d 505 (2001).
84. Hearing conducted by BOTA deemed unreasonable and arbitrary. In re Tax Application of Emporia Motors, Inc., 30 Kan. App. 2d 621, 44 P.3d 1280 (2002).
85. Department's failure to promulgate regulations was a failure to "follow prescribed procedures"; refusal to certify appellant as eligible for tax benefits was arbitrary and unreasonable. Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Commerce & Housing, 32 Kan. App. 2d 715, 88 P.3d 250 (2004).
86. Of three multifamily units, BOTA's valuation affirmed for one unit and reversed for the other two units. Board of Saline County Comm'rs v. Jensen, 32 Kan. App. 2d 730, 88 P.3d 242 (2004).
87. Relief may be granted if agency wrongfully interprets and applies the law. Hawley v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, 611, 132 P.3d 870 (2006).
88. Court has unlimited review over the Workers Compensation Board's application or interpretation of law. Tull v. Atchison Leather Products, Inc., 37 Kan. App. 2d 87, 93, 150 P.3d 316 (2007).
89. Appellate court has plenary or de novo review over questions of federal preemption, which are questions of law. Creekmore v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 37 Kan. App. 2d 101, 103, 149 P.3d 865 (2007).
90. Workers Compensation Board's decision reversed, not supported by evidence, erroneously interpreted and applied secondary injury rule. Casco V. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508, 520, 521, 154 P.3d 494 (2007).
91. Cited in case challenging the constitutionality of K.S.A. 79-32,117; statute constitutional. In re Tax Appeal of Weisgerber, 285 Kan. 98, 169 P.3d 321 (2007).
92. Section requires court to grant relief if agency has erroneously interpreted law. In re Tax Exempt. Application of K.S.U. SE Ag. Research Center, 37 Kan. App. 2d 718, 721, 157 P.3d 1 (2007).
93. BOTA decisions are subject to review under standards established in K.S.A. 77-621. In re Tax Protest of United Ag Services, 37 Kan. App. 2d 902, 905, 159 P.3d 1050 (2007).
94. Judicial review of BOTA orders governed by K.S.A. 77-621; discussion of courts powers to grant relief. Cimarex Energy Co. v. Board of Seward County Commissioners, 38 Kan. App. 2d 298, 303, 304, 164 P.3d 833 (2007).
95. Fine of $2,000 for each false or misleading statement in workers' compensation claim upheld. Coonce v. Garner, 38 Kan. App. 2d 523, 167 P.3d 801 (2007).
96. 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).
97. Court shall grant relief only if agency action is based on determination of facts not supported by substantial evidence. Deguillen v. Schwan's Food Manufacturing, Inc., 38 Kan. App. 2d 747, 751, 753, 172 P.3d 71 (2007).
98. Party claiming BOTA's actions invalid bears burden to show invalidity in judicial review under K.S.A. 77-601. In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Garnett, 39 Kan. App. 2d 242, 245, 177 P.3d 1279 (2008).
99. Cited; applicable standard for review of BOTA orders is governed by K.S.A. 77-621. In re Tax Exemption Application of Goddard, 39 Kan. App. 2d 325, 328, 180 P.3d 604 (2008).
100. KJRA applies to review administrative decisions relating to suspension of driver's licenses. Cornelius v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 39 Kan. App. 2d 334, 336, 180 P.3d 579 (2008).
101. Cited; statutes relating to property tax exemptions discussed and applied in low income housing exemption denial by BOTA. In re Tax Exemption Application of Inter-Faith Villa, 39 Kan. App. 2d 810, 815, 185 P.3d 295 (2008).
102. Appellant claiming arbitrary and capricious county action failed to designate a record sufficient to establish claimed error. Chesbro v. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs, 39 Kan. App. 2d 954, 969, 186 P.3d 829 (2008).
103. Cited; the standard of review for BOTA is governed by K.S.A. 77-621. In re Tax Exemption Application of Westboro Baptist Church, 40 Kan. App. 2d 27, 35, 189 P.3d 535 (2008).
104. Cited; when agency grants summary judgment court must resolve facts and inferences in favor of nonmoving party. Sheldon v. KPERS, 40 Kan. App. 2d 75, 79 to 81, 189 P.3d 554 (2008).
105. Cited; water rights terminated, no beneficial use without due and sufficient cause for five successive years. Frick Farm Properties v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 40 Kan. App. 2d 132, 136, 190 P.3d 983 (2008).
106. Cited; appeal to secretary of revenue essential to exhaustion of administrative remedies. Blomgren v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 40 Kan. App. 2d 208, 211, 191 P.3d 320 (2008).
107. Cited; appeal from BOTA; court finds that BOTA erroneously interpreted sales tax exemption statute regarding educational institutions. In re Tax Appeal of Graceland College Center, 40 Kan. App. 2d 665, 667, 195 P.3d 245 (2008).
108. Cited; civil service board's refusal to award attorney fees to prevailing party was within board's discretion. Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Powell, 40 Kan. App. 2d 967, 968, 197 P.3d 872 (2008).
109. Cited; state agency erroneously interpreted or applied law regarding discretionary trust regarding medicaid eligibility. White v. Kansas Health Policy Authority, 40 Kan. App. 2d 971, 976, 198 P.3d 172 (2008).
110. Cited; chief engineer correctly decided landowner needed a permit for stream obstruction. Frank v. Kansas Department of Agriculture, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1024, 1026 to 1028, 1035, 198 P.3d 195 (2008).
111. 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).
112. Appeals under K.S.A. 58-3509 are by trial de novo; Kansas act for judicial review does not apply. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).
113. Substantial evidence found to support termination of a party's water rights. Frick Farm Properties v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 289 Kan. 690, 216 P.3d 170 (2009).
114. Review of workers compensation board is limited to questions of law. Mitchell v. Petsmart, Inc., 41 Kan. App. 2d 523, 203 P.3d 76 (2009).
115. Dissenting opinion would affirm district court's dismissal of negligence claim by nurse against drug testing firm. Berry v. National Medical Services, Inc., 41 Kan. App. 2d 612, 205 P.3d 745 (2009).
116. No evidence in the record to support trial court's finding that state agency erroneously applied the law. Board of Graham County Comm'rs v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 41 Kan. App. 2d 936, 206 P.3d 558 (2009).
117. Workers compensation board's holding supported by substantial evidence. Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 41 Kan. App. 2d 1042, 207 P.3d 275 (2009).
118. K.S.A. 79-201b Third, 79-201 Second, 79-201 Ninth are discussed and applied in denying tax exemption. In re Tax Exemption Application of Gracious Promise Foundation, 42 Kan. App. 2d 180, 205 P.3d 791 (2009).
119. Party cannot collaterally attack a final agency order in a civil enforcement action by the agency. State ex rel. Bremby v. Thorson, 42 Kan. App. 2d 188, 210 P.3d 132 (2009).
120. Court discusses and applies principles regarding independent contractor versus employee status involving cab drivers. Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. App. 2d 215, 210 P.3d 647 (2009).
121. Workers compensation modification proceeding does not offer a second opportunity to determine original award issues. Scheidt v. Teakwood Cabinet & Fixture, Inc., 42 Kan. App. 2d 259, 211 P.3d 175 (2009).
122. Decisions of workers compensation board are reviewed under the Kansas judicial review act. Herrera-Gallegos v. H & H Delivery Service, Inc., 42 Kan. App. 2d 360, 212 P.3d 239 (2009).
123. Workers compensation board award upheld in case involving recreational and social events. Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 42 Kan. App. 2d 441, 213 P.3d 764 (2009).
124. District court upheld SRS decision overruling the denial of an application for affiliate status as provider for disabled person. Johnson Co. Developmental Supports v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 42 Kan. App. 2d 570, 216 P.3d 658 (2009).
125. BOTA's valuation adequately supported by evidence and not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; appraisal in violation of USPAS prohibited. In re Tax Appeal of Dillon Stores, 42 Kan. App. 2d 881, 221 P.3d 598 (2009).
126. Standard of review that existed at the time of agency decision applies. Milano's v. Kansas Dept of Labor, 43 Kan. App. 2d 779, 231 P.3d 1072 (2010).
127. Amendments to the Judicial review act altering standard of review not retroactive. Redd v. Kansas Truck Center, 291 Kan. 176, 239 P.3d 66 (2010).
128. Agency's decision made before 2009 amendments should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Nelson v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 44 Kan. App. 2d 1042, 242 P.3d 1259 (2010).
129. Judicial review of orders of the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals is governed by this statute. In re Tax Appeal of Brocato, 46 Kan. App. 2d 722, 234 P.3d 866 (2010).
130. Workers compensation board's denial of benefits upheld. Rausch v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 46 Kan. App. 2d 338, 263 P.3d 194 (2011).
131. Reasonableness of agency action is determined based on the agency's factual findings and applicable law. Wheatland Electric Cooperative v. Polansky, 46 Kan. App. 2d 746, 265 P.3d 1194 (2011).
132. COTA's valuation order reversed due to departure from Kansas law and procedure in application of a single second generation build-to-suit rental rate for a property less than half the size of the subject property. In re Equalization Appeal of Prieb, Properties, 47 Kan. App. 2d 122, 275 P.3d 56 (2012).
133. 2009 amendments only apply to those cases where an agency's action became final after July 1, 2009. Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636, 294 P.3d 287 (2013).
134. Case was remanded to the division of water resources to determine the reasonableness of the chief engineer's monitoring plan. Clawson v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 49 Kan. App. 2d 789, 315 P.3d 896 (2013).
135. The workers compensation board's findings in denying compensation held not supported by substantive evidence. Lake v. Jessee Trucking, 49 Kan. App. 2d 820, 316 P.3d 796 (2013).
136. Administrative law judge did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily or capriciously by excluding witness evidence and testimony obtained in violation of a no-contact order. Base v. Raytheon Aircraft Company, 50 Kan. App. 2d 508, 525, 329 P.3d 540 (2014).
137. Reviewing court may reverse the Kansas public employees retirement system board's decision that was not supported by substantial evidence. Hudson v. Bd. of Dirs. of the Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 53 K.2d 309, 323, 388 P.3d 597 (2016).
138. In reviewing the evidence in light of the record as a whole, an appellate court "shall not reweigh the evidence or engage in de novo review." In re Equalization Appeal of Wagner, 304 Kan. 587, 599, 372 P.3d 1226 (2016).
|