operative construction doctrine in Kansas

2003Deference to an agency’s interpretation is especially appropriate when ‘the agency is one of special competence and experience.’ Boatright v. Kansas Racing Comm’n, 251 Kan. 240, 246 , 834 P.2d 368 (1992).

2003Deference to an agency’s interpretation is especially appropriate when ‘the agency is one of special competence and experience.’ Boatright v. Kansas Racing Comm’n, 251 Kan. 240, 246 , 834 P.2d 368 (1992).

2002Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 455 , 691 P.2d 1303 (1984) .” In addition, as the basic review in this case is from the actions of the Board, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction, which we defined in GT Kansas in this manner: “ ‘ “The interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing that statute is entitled to judicial deference. . . .

2002Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 455 , 691 P.2d 1303 (1984) .” In addition, as the basic review in this case is from the actions of the Board, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction, which we defined in GT Kansas in this manner: “ ‘ “The interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing that statute is entitled to judicial deference. . . .

2017Morrow, 18 Kan.

2016Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (doctrine of operative construction has “been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books”); Coleman v. Swift-Eckrich, 281 Kan. 381, 383 , 130 P.3d 111 (2006) (recognizing that the doctrine of operative construction applied to agency interpretations of both statutes and regulations).

2016Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (doctrine of operative construction has “been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books”); Coleman v. Swift-Eckrich, 281 Kan. 381, 383 , 130 P.3d 111 (2006) (recognizing that the doctrine of operative construction applied to agency interpretations of both statutes and regulations).

2015Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (doctrine of operative construction has “been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, *859 disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books”); In re Tax Appeal of LaFarge Midwest, 293 Kan. 1039, 1044 , 271 P.3d 732 (2012) (noting that the doctrine of operative construction has lost favor).

2015Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (doctrine of operative construction has “been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, *859 disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books”); In re Tax Appeal of LaFarge Midwest, 293 Kan. 1039, 1044 , 271 P.3d 732 (2012) (noting that the doctrine of operative construction has lost favor).

2015Profs., 290 Kan. 446, 457 , 228 P.3d 403 (2010); see Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systeins, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (“the doctrine of operative construction . . . has been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to die history books where it will never again affect the outcome of an appeal”). *619 The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.

2015Profs., 290 Kan. 446, 457 , 228 P.3d 403 (2010); see Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systeins, 296 Kan. 552, 559 , 293 P.3d 723 (2013) (“the doctrine of operative construction . . . has been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to die history books where it will never again affect the outcome of an appeal”). *619 The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.

2015First, Payne was decided in 2008 and employed the doctrine of operative construction, which required the court to defer to the Board’s interpretation of the Act “if there [was] a rational basis for it.” 39 Kan.

2015This notwithstanding, foe Commission, relying on Muir v. Kansas *108 Health Policy Authority, 50 Kan.

2013To be crystal clear, we unequivocally declare here that the doctrine of operative construction, as described in Syllabus ¶ 3 and on page 448 of the Court of Appeals’ opinion (Douglas, 42 Kan.

2010Deference to an agency’s interpretation is particularly appropriate when the agency is one of special competence and ex *832 perience.” Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 270 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 2, 17 P.3d 907 (2001).

2010Deference to an agency’s interpretation is particularly appropriate when the agency is one of special competence and ex *832 perience.” Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 270 Kan. 560 , Syl. ¶ 2, 17 P.3d 907 (2001).

2010Mitchell, 41 Kan.

2009However, “[u]nder the doctrine of operative construction, the Board’s interpretation of the law is entitled to judicial deference.” Saylor, 41 Kan.

2008In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wetmore, 274 Kan. 702, 705 , 56 P.3d 248 (2002).

2008In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wetmore, 274 Kan. 702, 705 , 56 P.3d 248 (2002).

2008Denning v. KPERS, 285 Kan. 1045, 1048 , 180 P.3d 564 (2008).

2008Denning v. KPERS, 285 Kan. 1045, 1048 , 180 P.3d 564 (2008).

2007“However, ‘[t]he final construction of a statute [always] rests within the courts.’ ” 281 Kan. at 270 (quoting In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wichita, 255 Kan. 838, 842 , 877 P.2d 437 [1994]).

2007“However, ‘[t]he final construction of a statute [always] rests within the courts.’ ” 281 Kan. at 270 (quoting In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wichita, 255 Kan. 838, 842 , 877 P.2d 437 [1994]).

2007If there is a rational basis for the Board’s interpretation, it should be upheld.” 282 Kan. at 641 (citing Foos v. Terminix, 277 Kan. 687, 692-93 , 89 P.3d 546 [2004]).

2007“However, ‘[t]he final construction of a statute [always] rests within the courts.’ ” 281 Kan. at 270 (quoting In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wichita, 255 Kan. 838, 842 , 877 P.2d 437 [1994]).

2005Furthermore, under the doctrine of operative construction, the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing that statute is entitled to judicial deference, especially if the agency is one of “ ‘ “special competence and experience.” [Citation omitted.]’ ” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 276 Kan. 232, 247 , 75 P.3d 226 (2003).

2005Furthermore, under the doctrine of operative construction, the interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing that statute is entitled to judicial deference, especially if the agency is one of “ ‘ “special competence and experience.” [Citation omitted.]’ ” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 276 Kan. 232, 247 , 75 P.3d 226 (2003).

2005Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 604 , 808 P.2d 1355 (1991). ‘A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to all actions of an administrative agency and the burden of proving arbitrary and capricious conduct lies with the party challenging the agency’s action. [Citations omitted.]’ ” Because one of the principal issues here involves the interpretation of a statute, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction as we stated in GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317 , 22 P.3d 600 (2001): “The interpretation of a statute by a

2005Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 604 , 808 P.2d 1355 (1991). ‘A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to all actions of an administrative agency and the burden of proving arbitrary and capricious conduct lies with the party challenging the agency’s action. [Citations omitted.]’ ” Because one of the principal issues here involves the interpretation of a statute, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction as we stated in GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317 , 22 P.3d 600 (2001): “The interpretation of a statute by a

2005Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 604 , 808 P.2d 1355 (1991). ‘A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to all actions of an administrative agency and the burden of proving arbitrary and capricious conduct lies with the party challenging the agency’s action. [Citations omitted.]’ ” Because one of the principal issues here involves the interpretation of a statute, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction as we stated in GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317 , 22 P.3d 600 (2001): “The interpretation of a statute by a

2005Vakas v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 248 Kan. 589, 604 , 808 P.2d 1355 (1991). ‘A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to all actions of an administrative agency and the burden of proving arbitrary and capricious conduct lies with the party challenging the agency’s action. [Citations omitted.]’ ” Because one of the principal issues here involves the interpretation of a statute, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction as we stated in GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317 , 22 P.3d 600 (2001): “The interpretation of a statute by a