agency error in Kansas

2011As Denning argues, appearing before this quasi-judicial body without an applicable standard is "patently unfair to those appearing before it." Maurer claims that so long as "`the agency error did not prejudice the parties, the agency's action must be affirmed.'" See Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 25 Kan.App.2d 849, 852 , 971 P.2d 1213 (1999) (citing Zinke, 242 Kan. at 475 , 749 P.2d 21 ).

2011As Denning argues, appearing before this quasi-judicial body without an applicable standard is "patently unfair to those appearing before it." Maurer claims that so long as "`the agency error did not prejudice the parties, the agency's action must be affirmed.'" See Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 25 Kan.App.2d 849, 852 , 971 P.2d 1213 (1999) (citing Zinke, 242 Kan. at 475 , 749 P.2d 21 ).

2011As Denning argues, appearing before this quasi-judicial body without an applicable standard is "patently unfair to those appearing before it." Maurer claims that so long as "`the agency error did not prejudice the parties, the agency's action must be affirmed.'" See Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 25 Kan.App.2d 849, 852 , 971 P.2d 1213 (1999) (citing Zinke, 242 Kan. at 475 , 749 P.2d 21 ).

2011As Denning argues, appearing before this quasi-judicial body without an applicable standard is "patently unfair to those appearing before it." Maurer claims that so long as "`the agency error did not prejudice the parties, the agency's action must be affirmed.'" See Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 25 Kan.App.2d 849, 852 , 971 P.2d 1213 (1999) (citing Zinke, 242 Kan. at 475 , 749 P.2d 21 ).

2008The KDR argued that Kuenstler’s petition did not give focus to the alleged agency error, as required by K.S.A. 77-614(b) and Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764 , 148 P.3d 538 (2006), and that Kuenstler had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on one of the issues.

2008The KDR argued that Kuenstler’s petition did not give focus to the alleged agency error, as required by K.S.A. 77-614(b) and Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764 , 148 P.3d 538 (2006), and that Kuenstler had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on one of the issues.

1999“This court may not reweigh the evidence presented at the agency hearing or determine the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony.” Copeland, 24 Kan.

1997Whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence (K.S.A. 77-621[c] [7]) is a question of law. [Citation omitted.] “Substantial evidence” is evidence which possesses both relevance and substance, and which furnishes a substantial basis of fact from which the issues can be reasonably resolved.’ [Citation omitted.] “This court may not reweigh the evidence presented at the agency hearing or determine the weight or credibiliiy of the witnesses’ testimony. [Citation omitted.]” 22 Kan.