58-3509.
Appeals of a determination of relocation payments; requirements and procedures.
On and after July 1, 2004: (a) Any displaced person entitled to benefits under this article may appeal by written notice to the state, agency or political subdivision a determination of relocation payments. If such an appeal is made to the state, agency or political subdivision within 60 days of the receiving notice of the determination being appealed, an independent hearing examiner shall be appointed by the state, agency or political subdivision within 10 days and a determination of the appeal made within 60 days. Any party wishing to appeal the ruling of the hearing examiner may do so by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court within 30 days of the hearing examiner's decision. In the event any parties shall perfect an appeal to district court, copies of such notice of appeal shall be mailed to all parties affected by such appeal within three days after the date of perfection thereof. Any such appeal to district court shall be a trial de novo only on the issue of relocation benefits.
(b) This section shall be a part of and supplemental to article 35 of chapter 58 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 2004, ch. 110, § 9; April 22.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Appeals under K.S.A. 58-3509, court makes independent finding of facts and conclusions of law based on record below. Frick v. City of Salina, 289 Kan. 1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).
2. A party must exhaust remedies before appealing a hearing examiner's ruling on the issue of relocation benefits and assistance to the district court and failure to do so deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Kan. Fire & Safety Equip. v. City of Topeka, 317 Kan. 418, 438, 531 P.3d 504 (2023).
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 40דAs required by K.S.A. 58-3509, the City selected *744 an independent hearing examiner to conduct a review of the City's determination of eligible relocation benefits.”
143rd Street Investors, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 259 P.3d 644 (Kan. 2011). “In this regard, no one has suggested that the County’s decision was purely judicial. Hence, we can conclude the district court correctly determined that it should not conduct a full trial or make independent findings of fact.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 235 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2010). “In Frick I, we held that, under K.S.A. 58-3509(a), the district court applied an incorrect standard of review to the hearing examiner’s administrative findings.”
Kansas Fire & Saf. Equip. v. City of Topeka (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5דThey also claim the district court should have allowed them leave to amend their petition to assert a claim under K.S.A. 58-3509 or dismissed their case without prejudice rather than grant the City summary judgment.”
Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2דThe court concluded: "[W]hen the legislature chose to make repeated references to the terms 'appeal' and 'notice of appeal' and to use the phrase 'trial de novo' in the K.S.A. 58-3509, as it had in the statute construed in Nurge (K.”
— K.S.A. § 58-3509(a) — 4 cases
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 208 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2009). “As required by K.S.A. 58-3509, the City selected *744 an independent hearing examiner to conduct a review of the City's determination of eligible relocation benefits.”
Ben J. v. City of Salina, 235 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2010). “In Frick I, we held that, under K.S.A. 58-3509(a), the district court applied an incorrect standard of review to the hearing examiner’s administrative findings.”
Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “The court concluded: "[W]hen the legislature chose to make repeated references to the terms 'appeal' and 'notice of appeal' and to use the phrase 'trial de novo' in the K.S.A. 58-3509, as it had in the statute construed in Nurge (K.”
Kansas Fire & Saf. Equip. v. City of Topeka (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “They also claim the district court should have allowed them leave to amend their petition to assert a claim under K.S.A. 58-3509 or dismissed their case without prejudice rather than grant the City summary judgment.”
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.