Printable Format77-607. Persons entitled to review; final agency action. (a) A person who qualifies under this act regarding (1) standing (K.S.A. 77-611), (2) exhaustion of administrative remedies (K.S.A. 77-612) and (3) time for filing the petition for judicial review (K.S.A. 77-613) and other applicable provisions of law regarding bond, compliance and other preconditions is entitled to judicial review of final agency action, whether or not the person has sought judicial review of any related nonfinal agency action.
(b) For purposes of this section and K.S.A. 77-608:
(1) "Final agency action" means the whole or a part of any agency action other than nonfinal agency action;
(2) "Nonfinal agency action" means the whole or a part of an agency determination, investigation, proceeding, hearing, conference or other process that the agency intends or is reasonably believed to intend to be preliminary, preparatory, procedural or intermediate with regard to subsequent agency action of that agency or another agency.
History: L. 1984, ch. 338, ยง 7; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"A Species Unto Themselves: Professional Disciplinary Actions," Mary Feighny and Camille Nohe, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 6, 29 (2002).
"Procedures Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.S.A. 77-601 et seq.," Martha J. Coffman, 76 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 21 (2007).
Leah Stein, Saving the Ogallala Aquifer: Kansas's Duty to Protect Intergenerational Water Rights, 34 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 80 (2024).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; judicial review unavailable where party fails to exhaust administrative remedies as required herein and by K.S.A. 77-612. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 241 Kan. 744, 751, 740 P.2d 585 (1987).
2. Petition for judicial review may be filed only after exhaustion of all administrative remedies within agency being challenged. Expert Environmental Control, Inc. v. Walker, 13 Kan. App. 2d 56, 58, 761 P.2d 320 (1988).
3. Racing commission orders subject to broad grant of review in act; Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear direct appeal. Little Balkans Foundation, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 247 Kan. 180, 189, 795 P.2d 368 (1990).
4. Where action duly revived (K.S.A. 60-225), appellate decision, if any, noted as final judgment perfecting demand against estate (K.S.A. 59-2238). In re Estate of Rains, 249 Kan. 178, 183, 815 P.2d 61 (1991).
5. Whether motion to reconsider order of Kansas civil service board is permissive tolling limitations period for judicial review examined. State Bank Commissioner v. Emery, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1063, 1064, 880 P.2d 783 (1994).
6. Notice requirements of K.S.A. 77-613(e) require strict compliance; KJRA has no provision for substantial compliance. Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 266 Kan. 338, 341, 969 P.2d 875 (1998).
7. KCC investigative order was a nonfinal agency action not ripe for judicial review under Act. Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 27 Kan. App. 2d 573, 7 P.3d 311 (2000).
8. Mentioned; discussion of difference in "final agency action" and "final agency order". Cimarex Energy Co. v. Board of Seward County Commissioners, 38 Kan. App. 2d 298, 302, 303, 164 P.3d 833 (2007).
9. Agency action is nonfinal if it is "preliminary, preparatory, procedural or intermediate." Guss v. Fort Hays State Univ., 38 Kan. App. 2d 912, 916, 173 P.3d 1159 (2008).
10. Cited; appeal to secretary of revenue essential to exhaustion of administrative remedies. Blomgren v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 40 Kan. App. 2d 208, 212, 213, 191 P.3d 320 (2008).
11. 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, 752, 753, 199 P.3d 781 (2009).
12. Phrase "entitled to obtain judicial review" discussed and applied. Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 204 P.3d 562 (2009).
13. Under K.S.A. 77-614 a petition for judicial review requires petitioner's reasons for relief, not factual bases. Rebel v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 419, 204 P.3d 551 (2009).
14. 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).
15. Court of appeals only has jurisdiction to review final agency actions. Sprint Communications Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 45 Kan. App. 2d 460, 249 P.3d 1210 (2011).
16. "Final agency action" and "nonfinal agency action" explained. Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 292 Kan. 723, 256 P.3d 867 (2011).