Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 58-3044 (2026)

Denial of license; hearing; incomplete applications

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

58-3044. Denial of license; hearing; incomplete applications. (a) If the commission, after a complete application for a license or renewal of a license has been filed, accompanied by the proper fee, refuses to issue or renew the license, the commission shall give written notice to the applicant setting forth the reasons for such refusal. Such notice and an opportunity to be heard shall be given in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act, unless the application for a license is denied solely because of the applicant's failure to pass a required examination.

(b) If an incomplete application is filed with the commission or the proper fees are not paid, the commission shall provide written notice to the applicant of the deficiency. If the deficiency is not corrected within a reasonable time or if no time remains to correct the deficiency, the commission shall provide written notice to the applicant that the applicant may withdraw the incomplete application and request to receive any applicable refund. If the applicant fails to respond to the commission's notice within a reasonable time, the application shall be considered incomplete and the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act shall not apply. The applicant may request to receive any applicable refund. For purposes of this paragraph only, reasonable time shall mean not less than 10 calendar days.

History: L. 1980, ch. 164, § 11; L. 1984, ch. 313, § 86; L. 1986, ch. 209, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 104, § 7; July 1.


Previous | Next

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2002–2002 · leading case: In re the Appeal of Gates, 46 P.3d 1206 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Appeal of Gates, 46 P.3d 1206 (Kan. 2002). “Gates then requested a hearing pursuant to K.S.A. 58-3044. Following that hearing and in keeping with its initial order, the Commission stated in the January 2001 final order on his third application: “In Vakas , the Court acknowledged that some conduct might be so serious in…”
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.