17 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Commissiongreen2 sentences2002See Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm’n, 244 Kan. 343, 365 , 770 P.2d 423 (1989). 2002See Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm’n, 244 Kan. 343, 365 , 770 P.2d 423 (1989). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment
green
2 sentences2005“The arbitrary and capricious test relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified, such as the reasonableness of an agency’s exercise of discretion in reaching a determination or whether the agency’s action is without foundation in fact.” Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 (1983). 2005“The arbitrary and capricious test relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified, such as the reasonableness of an agency’s exercise of discretion in reaching a determination or whether the agency’s action is without foundation in fact.” Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 (1983). | 8 | 1984–2005 |
Kansas Department of Revenue v. Powell
green
2 sentences2020Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Powell, 290 Kan. 564, 569 , 232 P.3d 856 (2010). 2020Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Powell, 290 Kan. 564, 569 , 232 P.3d 856 (2010). | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Stores v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2010“This court has defined ‘arbitrary’ to mean without adequate determining principles, not done or acting according to reason or judgment; . . . and ‘capricious’ as changing, apparently without regard to any laws.” Dillon Stores v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm’rs, 259 Kan. 295 , Syl. ¶ 3, 912 P.2d 170 (1996). 2010“This court has defined ‘arbitrary’ to mean without adequate determining principles, not done or acting according to reason or judgment; . . . and ‘capricious’ as changing, apparently without regard to any laws.” Dillon Stores v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm’rs, 259 Kan. 295 , Syl. ¶ 3, 912 P.2d 170 (1996). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Sokol v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
green
2 sentences2002FINE The only question here is whether the imposition of a $15,000 fine was arbitrary and capricious. “ The arbitrary and capricious test relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified, such as the reasonableness of an agency’s exercise of discretion in reaching a determination or whether the agency’s action is without foundation in fact. [Citation omitted.]’ ” Sokol v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 267 Kan. 740, 746 , 981 P.2d 1172 (1999). 2002FINE The only question here is whether the imposition of a $15,000 fine was arbitrary and capricious. “ The arbitrary and capricious test relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified, such as the reasonableness of an agency’s exercise of discretion in reaching a determination or whether the agency’s action is without foundation in fact. [Citation omitted.]’ ” Sokol v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 267 Kan. 740, 746 , 981 P.2d 1172 (1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Arco Products Co. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission
neutral
1 sentence2001Similarly, the distinction between current customers and former customers is enough to support the Commission’s order under the arbitrary and capricious standard.” 125 Wash. 2d at 812 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hurley v. Board of County Commissioners
neutral
1 sentence1996Moreover, Hurley does not use or define the arbitrary and capricious standard; rather, it found that the tax was “unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory and grossly disproportionate.” 188 Kan. at 66 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n
green
2 sentences1996Plaintiffs rely on Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm’n, 242 Kan. 470, 474 , 749 P.2d 21 (1988), to define arbitrary and capricious as “unreasonable or 'without foundation in fact.’ ” (Emphasis added.) (Quoting Pork Motel Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 [1983].) However, Zinke does not concern the arbitrary and capriciousness which is needed to give a district court jurisdiction of a tax case without exhaustion of administrative remedies under K.S.A. 60-907. 1996Plaintiffs rely on Zinke & Trumbo, Ltd. v. Kansas Corporation Comm’n, 242 Kan. 470, 474 , 749 P.2d 21 (1988), to define arbitrary and capricious as “unreasonable or 'without foundation in fact.’ ” (Emphasis added.) (Quoting Pork Motel Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 [1983].) However, Zinke does not concern the arbitrary and capriciousness which is needed to give a district court jurisdiction of a tax case without exhaustion of administrative remedies under K.S.A. 60-907. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In Re Petition of City of Shawnee for Annexation of Land
green
2 sentences1987In re Petition of City of Shawnee for Annexation of Land, 236 Kan. 1, 21 , 687 P.2d 603 (1984); Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 (1983). 1987In re Petition of City of Shawnee for Annexation of Land, 236 Kan. 1, 21 , 687 P.2d 603 (1984); Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 381 , 673 P.2d 1126 (1983). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.