K.S.A. » Chapter 44
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-1010 (2026)

Petition for reconsideration of orders of commission

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-1010. Petition for reconsideration of orders of commission. Any party being dissatisfied with any order or decision of the commission may petition for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 77-529 and amendments thereto. No cause of action arising out of any order or decision of the commission shall accrue in any court to any party unless such party shall petition for reconsideration as herein provided. No party shall, in any court, urge or rely upon any ground not set forth in the petition for reconsideration.

History: L. 1961, ch. 248, § 7; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 150; July 1, 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Stephens v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500, 546 P.2d 197 (Kan. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stephens v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500, 546 P.2d 197 (Kan. 1975). · cites it 5× “The second broad ground alleged for reversal is that the trial court erroneously conducted a trial de novo, making its own findings of fact, drawing its own inferences from the record, and substituting its judgment for that of the administrative agency.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. KAN COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, 855 P.2d 905 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 5× “In attempting to resolve the overlapping and confusing language of the three acts before the court, we believe the solution clearly lies within the language of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination and more particularly the specific provision of K.S.A. 44-1010 which provides:…”
Parsells v. Manhattan Radiology Grp., L.L.P., 255 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 8× “In support of their argument, defendants point to K.S.A. § 44-1010, which states: Any party being dissatisfied with any order or decision of the commission may petition for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of KS.”
O'LOUGHLIN v. the Pritchard Corp., 972 F. Supp. 1352 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 4× “They argue that plaintiff has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies of the KADEA, K.S.A. 44-1010. They suggest that plaintiff has produced no evidence of such exhaustion.”
Sandlin v. Roche Labs., Inc., 991 P.2d 883 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 3× “, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-1010, and K.S.A. 44-1011.”
Wagher v. Guy's Foods, Inc., 885 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “In each case, the court cited K.S.A. 44-1010, which provides: *310 “Any party being dissatisfied with any order or decision of the commission may petition for reconsideration in accordance with the provisions of K.”
Young v. Desco Coatings of Kansas, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 610 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 44-1111 through § 44-1121; K.S.A § 44-1010. “No cause of action ... shall accrue in any court” unless the party dissatisfied with the decision by the Kansas Human Rights Commission has petitioned that agency for reconsideration.”
Smith v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 124 F.R.D. 665 (D. Kan. 1989). “” Thus, unlike the acts construed in the cases cited by MCI, see K.S.A. 44-1010 & 1011; id. 72-5430a, the wage and hours laws specifically allow a party to initiate an action in court rather than before the KDHR.”
Davidson v. MAC Equip., Inc., 878 F. Supp. 186 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “Judicial review of the KHRC decisions is controlled by K.S.A. 44-1010. K.S.A. 44-1010 states if any party is dissatisfied with a KHRC order or decision, that party may petition for reconsideration by following K.”
Kansas State Univerity v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 796 P.2d 1046 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “One issue Stephens addressed was the need to fully exhaust administrative remedies under K.S.A. 44-1010 before proceeding to court.”
Jones v. the Grain Club, 605 P.2d 142 (Kan. 1980). “An application for rehearing pursuant to K.S.A. 44-1010 was denied. An appeal was then taken to the district court under K.”
Budenz v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (D. Kan. 2002). “1995) (stating that before a *1271 plaintiff may litigate any KAAD claims in court, plaintiff must first receive an unfavorable determination from the KHRC, file for reconsideration of that unfavorable determination and then receive a denial of the reconsideration application);…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.