Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-511 (2026)

Time limits for processing application for an order or a request for a hearing; expiration of license, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-511. Time limits for processing application for an order or a request for a hearing; expiration of license, when. (a) Except to the extent that the time limits in this subsection are inconsistent with limits established by another statute, a state agency shall process an application for an order on which a statute provides for a hearing under this act as follows:

(1) Within 30 days after receipt of the application, the state agency shall acknowledge receipt thereof and inform the applicant of the name, official title, mailing address and telephone number of a state agency member or employee who may be contacted regarding the application. As soon as practicable, the state agency shall notify the applicant of any apparent errors or omissions. Failure to detect such errors or omissions does not preclude the state agency from raising them at a later stage of the proceeding.

(2) When practicable, within 90 days after receipt of a completed application, the state agency shall:

(A) Approve or deny the application, in whole or in part, on the basis of emergency or summary proceedings, if those proceedings are available under this act for disposition of the matter; or

(B) commence a formal hearing or a conference hearing in accordance with this act.

(b) Except to the extent that the time limits in this subsection are inconsistent with limits established by another statute, a state agency shall process a request for a hearing as follows:

(1) Within 30 days after receipt of the request, the state agency shall acknowledge receipt thereof and if the state agency has not previously done so, the state agency shall notify the applicant of the name, official title, mailing address and telephone number of a state agency member or employee who may be contacted regarding the request; and

(2) when practicable, within 90 days after receipt of the request the state agency shall commence a formal or conference hearing in accordance with this act unless a statute makes the granting of a hearing discretionary with the state agency and the state agency determines not to conduct a hearing.

(c) For purposes of this section, a hearing commences when the state agency or presiding officer notifies a party that a prehearing conference or other stage of the hearing will be conducted.

(d) If a timely and sufficient application has been made for renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the state agency has taken final action upon the application for renewal or, if the state agency's action is unfavorable, until the last day for seeking judicial review of the state agency's action or a later date fixed by the reviewing court.

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 11; L. 1986, ch. 362, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 5; L. 1989, ch. 283, § 2; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2004 · leading case: In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 9× “Arguments made by Petitioner that K.S.A. 77-511, which is not one of the statutes enumerated by K.”

Lacy v. Kansas Dental Bd., 58 P.3d 668 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 2× “65-1435(c) was set forth and the court’s decision pointed to that wording.”

Doe v. Kansas Dep't of Human Resources, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 9× “Arguments made by Petitioner that K.S.A. 77-511, which is not one of the statutes enumerated by K.”

Gamblian v. City of Parsons, 931 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1997). “The Administrative Procedure Act sets up time limits for requesting a hearing (K.S.A. 77-511); notice requirements for a hearing (K.”

— K.S.A. § 77-511(b)(2) — 1 case

Lacy v. Kansas Dental Bd., 58 P.3d 668 (Kan. 2002). “65-1435(c) was set forth and the court’s decision pointed to that wording.”

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.