KDR motion in Kansas

2009After hearing arguments of counsel, the district court found that Rivera’s petition for judicial review failed to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in Bruch v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 282 Kan. 764 , 148 P.3d 538 (2006).

2009See Kingsley, 288 Kan. at 411-13 ; Bruch, 282 Kan. at 774 .

2018The panel found that under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 8-259(a) and *486 K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 8-1002(o), the KJRA applied to the judicial review and that a petition for review must be filed within 10 days of the order's effective date. 29 Kan.

2018KDR's motion for reconsideration was untimely and the hearing officer was without jurisdiction to amend the suspension order." 29 Kan.

2006App. 2d 37 (2001), in which the court held that the required elements of K.S.A. 77-614(b) are jurisdictional, and which rejected the prior decisions of University of Kansas v. Department of Human Resources, 20 Kan.

2006Ultimately, the district court granted the motions, filing its dismissal order on February 1, 2005, in which the court “[adopted] as its own the suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in KDR’s brief.” The dismissal order also recited: “This follows the decision of Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 30 Kan.

2005Pieren-Abbott relies on Austin v. Johnston Coca-Cola Bottling Group, Inc., 20 Kan.

1996After rejecting the KDR’s claim that an expressed or implied agency existed, BOTA determined that under the facts an apparent agency existed between Scholastic and the teachers, citing Kunz v. Lowden, 124 F.2d 911 (10th Cir. 1942).