Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 77-501 (2026)
Title
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
77-501. Title. K.S.A. 77-501 through 77-566 shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas administrative procedure act.
History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 1; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 3; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Denning v. Johnson Sheriff's Civil Serv., 266 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
Denning v. Johnson Sheriff's Civil Serv., 266 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “District Court's Review of the First CSB Decision Preliminarily, we note that the first CSB decision was not a unanimous decision.”
Prager v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 20 P.3d 39 (Kan. 2001). “Upon a proper request for a hearing, the Board shall grant a hearing in accordance with the procedures of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.S.A. 77-501 et seq. (KAPA), within 45 days of the request.”
Kansas Racing Mgmt., Inc. v. Kansas Racing Comm'n, 770 P.2d 423 (Kan. 1989). “74-8813[e] and 74-8815[e]) required that the denial of an organiza *347 tion or an owners’ license by the Commission be in accordance with the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-501 et seq., which creates procedural rights and imposes procedural duties…”
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998). “As a part of this contention, they claim that the Kansas *340 Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.S.A. 77-501 et seq., applies or, at the very least, minimal requirements of notice and an opportunity for hearing are required before a valid order may be entered denying their…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bremby, 189 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2008). “77-611. According to the court, the KDHE’s permit was directed at Waste Connections, not the appellants.”
Bd. of Com'rs of Sumner Cnty. v. Bremby, 189 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2008). “The district court granted the motion to dismiss based upon its conclusion that appellants lacked standing under K.S.A. 77-611. According to the court, the KDHE's permit was directed at Waste Connections, not the appellants.”
Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 238 P.3d 731 (Kan. 2010). “Indeed, our Kansas Administrative Procedures Act, K.S.A. 77-501 et seq., long ago prohibited the very practice employed here, i.”
Connelly v. Kansas High. Patrol, 26 P.3d 1246 (Kan. 2001). “See K.S.A. 77-501 et seq. “If die Board finds the disciplinary action was unreasonably taken, K.”
Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002). “In administrative proceedings conducted under the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.S.A. 77-501 et seq., the presiding officer is not bound by the technical rules of evidence and evidence need not be excluded solely because it is hearsay.”
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Wagner, 372 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2016). “The County noted the absence of a provision within the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.S.A. 77-501 et seq., authorizing a hearing officer or a hearing panel to compel a party to create and/or offer evidence that it did not offer voluntarily at an.”
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994). “77-536) of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.S.A. 77-501 et seq., and that the refusal to lift the suspension was a misuse of statutory procedures.”
In Re the Appeal of the City of Wichita, 86 P.3d 513 (Kan. 2004). “Procedural History The Revenue Department conducted an audit of the City for the period of June 1, 1992, through May 31, 1995, and the notice of assessment of retailer’s sales tax, compensating use tax, and interest was issued on February 5, 1996.”
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.