Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-426 (2026)

Existing rules and regulations continued in effect; effective date of permanent rules and regulations; filing with joint legislative committee; legislature may request revocation or amendment of rules and regulations; notice of revocation, requirements for expedited revocation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

77-426. Existing rules and regulations continued in effect; effective date of permanent rules and regulations; filing with joint legislative committee; legislature may request revocation or amendment of rules and regulations; notice of revocation, requirements for expedited revocation. (a) All rules and regulations that are in force and effect at the time this act takes effect shall continue in full force and effect and may be amended, revived or revoked as provided by law. All new rules and regulations and all amendments, revivals or revocations of rules and regulations, other than temporary regulations, adopted in any year shall be filed with the secretary of state and shall become effective 15 days following its publication in the Kansas register or such later date as clearly expressed in the body of such rule and regulation.

(b) Except for rules and regulations revoked pursuant to subsection (d), as soon as possible after the filing of any rules and regulations by a state agency, the secretary of state shall submit to the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations such number of copies as may be requested by the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations.

(c) At any time prior to adjournment sine die of the regular session of the legislature, the legislature may adopt a concurrent resolution expressing the concern of the legislature with any permanent or temporary rule and regulation that is in force and effect and on file in the office of the secretary of state and any permanent rule and regulation filed in the office of the secretary of state during the preceding year and requesting the revocation of any such rule and regulation or the amendment of any such rule and regulation in the manner specified in such resolution.

(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules and regulations filing act, any rule and regulation may be revoked pursuant to this subsection if such rule and regulation is identified by a state agency in the report submitted to the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations pursuant to K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 77-440, and amendments thereto, as one that may be revoked pursuant to this subsection. A state agency may revoke a rule and regulation by filing a notice of such revocation with the secretary of state and causing such notice to be published in the Kansas register. Such notice of revocation shall not contain any new rules and regulations or any amendments to any rules and regulations.

(2) Prior to filing the notice of revocation with the secretary, the state agency shall:

(A) Provide a written notice to businesses, local governmental units and members of the public known to the agency to be affected by the proposed revocation. Upon the written request of a member of the public, hold a public hearing on the proposed notice of revocation;

(B) submit the rules and regulations proposed for revocation to the attorney general for review and approval in accordance with K.S.A. 77-420(d), and amendments thereto; and

(C) submit the notice of revocation to the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations and, upon request by the chairperson of such committee, appear before such committee at a hearing on such notice.

(3) The revocation of a rule and regulation under this subsection shall be effective 15 days following the date that the notice of such revocation is published in the Kansas register.

History: L. 1965, ch. 506, § 12; L. 1974, ch. 421, § 3; L. 1975, ch. 484, § 4; L. 1975, ch. 485, § 4; L. 1975, ch. 486, § 4; L. 1976, ch. 415, § 6; L. 1976, ch. 416, § 1; L. 1977, ch. 321, § 12; L. 1979, ch. 305, § 1; L. 1979, ch. 304, § 5; L. 1982, ch. 386, § 7; L. 1985, ch. 307, § 4; L. 1988, ch. 366, § 39; L. 1995, ch. 93, § 3; L. 2022, ch. 61, § 7; L. 2025, ch. 30, § 1; April 10.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2002 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 687 P.2d 622 (Kan. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 687 P.2d 622 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 14× “: This is an original action in quo warranto and mandamus brought by the state on relation of the attorney general against the respondents Kansas House of Representatives, Kansas Senate and Kansas Governor, John Carlin, seeking a determination of the constitutionality of K.S.A.…”

State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov. Of Wyandotte Cnty./kansas City, 955 P.2d 1136 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× ““The fact that K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 77-426 was passed in accordance with the provisions of art.”

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Finney, 836 P.2d 1169 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 2× “77-426 [c] and [d]) which allowed the legislature to adopt, modify, or revoke administrative rules and regulations through concurrent resolutions without presentment to the governor. The court held that the house of representatives was not a proper party to the action but held…”

Country Club Home, Inc. v. Harder, 623 P.2d 505 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 4× “77-422) and permanent regulations (K.S.A. 77-426). Under K.S.A. 77-422: “A temporary rule and regulation shall take effect, subject to subsequent action or enactment by the legislature, after approval by the secretary of administration and the attorney general, as provided by K.”

Wesley Med. Ctr. v. Clark, 669 P.2d 209 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, since the legislature did not modify the regulation, as it had authority to do under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 77-426, the petitioner asserts the legislature has approved and adopted this privilege.”

State v. Neufeld, 926 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 4× “Stephan was an action in quo warranto and mandamus brought by the State against the Kansas House of Representatives, the Kansas Senate, and the Kansas governor, seeking a determination of the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 77-426(c) and (d). This statute provided that…”

Stansbury v. Hannigan, 960 P.2d 227 (Kan. 1998). “This statute provides in part: “Every rule and regulation other than a temporary rule and regulation which is filed by the state agency in the office of the secretary of state as provided in this act shall have the force and effect of law on and after the date prescribed in…”

Sedlak v. Dick, 887 P.2d 1119 (Kan. 1995). “One basis of the challenge was that the statute violated the doctrine of separation of powers by authorizing the legislature to usurp the executive power to administer and enforce laws.”

North Am. Saf. Valve Indus., Inc. v. Wolgast, 672 F. Supp. 488 (D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 4× “Although plaintiff’s claims might be successfully argued if the described procedures applied only to the initial adoption of rules and regulations, its claims miss the mark in light of the fact that section 77-415 defines “rule and regulation” to include amendments or…”

Am. Trust Administrators, Inc. v. Kansas Ins. Dept., 44 P.3d 1253 (Kan. 2002). “77-425 provides: “Every rule and regulation other than a temporary rule and regulation which is filed by a state agency in the office of the secretary of state as provided in this act shall have the force and effect of law on and after the date prescribed in K.S.A. 77-426, and…”

Garner v. Nelson, 963 P.2d 1242 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “This statute provides in part: ‘Every rule and regulation other than a temporary rule and regulation which is filed by the state agency in the office of the secretary of state as provided in this act shall have the force and effect of law on and after the date prescribed in…”

— K.S.A. § 77-426(c) — 4 cases

State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov. Of Wyandotte Cnty./kansas City, 955 P.2d 1136 (Kan. 1998). ““The fact that K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 77-426 was passed in accordance with the provisions of art.”

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 687 P.2d 622 (Kan. 1984). “: This is an original action in quo warranto and mandamus brought by the state on relation of the attorney general against the respondents Kansas House of Representatives, Kansas Senate and Kansas Governor, John Carlin, seeking a determination of the constitutionality of K.S.A.…”

State v. Neufeld, 926 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1996). “Stephan was an action in quo warranto and mandamus brought by the State against the Kansas House of Representatives, the Kansas Senate, and the Kansas governor, seeking a determination of the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 77-426(c) and (d). This statute provided that…”

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.