Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-514 (2026)

Presiding officer

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-514. Presiding officer. (a) For all agencies, except for the state board of tax appeals, the agency head, one or more members of the agency head or a presiding officer assigned by the office of administrative hearings shall be the presiding officer.

(b) Any person serving or designated to serve alone or with others as presiding officer is subject to disqualification for administrative bias, prejudice or interest.

(c) Any party may petition for the disqualification of a person promptly after receipt of notice indicating that the person will preside or promptly upon discovering facts establishing grounds for disqualification, whichever is later.

(d) A person whose disqualification is requested shall determine whether to grant the petition, stating facts and reasons for the determination.

(e) If a substitute is required for a person who is disqualified or becomes unavailable for any other reason, any action taken by a duly appointed substitute for a disqualified or unavailable person is as effective as if taken by the latter.

(f) If the office of administrative hearings cannot provide a presiding officer, a state agency may enter into agreements with another state agency to provide presiding officers to conduct proceedings under this act.

(g) Notwithstanding any quorum requirements, if the agency head of a professional or occupational licensing agency is a body of individuals, the agency head, unless prohibited by law, may designate one or more members of the agency head to serve as presiding officer and to render a final order in the proceeding.

(h) Except as otherwise provided by law, in any proceeding under this act, a person shall not be eligible to act as presiding officer, and shall not provide confidential legal or technical advice to a presiding officer in the proceeding, if that person:

(1) Has served in an investigatory or prosecutorial capacity in the proceeding or a proceeding arising out of the same event or transaction; or

(2) is supervised or directed by a person who would be disqualified under paragraph (1).

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 14; L. 1995, ch. 175, § 2; L. 1997, ch. 182, § 92; L. 2004, ch. 145, § 38; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 7; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 80; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 885 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 885 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 6× “It observes that K.S.A. 77-514 permits one member of a board to preside over a hearing.”

In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 4× “hat he was not an employee of the Division and the director was not his supervisor; that the reasons for dismissal of the subpoena had been addressed in a previous order; that Judge Bullock's dicta was not applicable because an evidentiary hearing was going to be held; and that…”

Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 238 P.3d 731 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 77-514(h) (person shall not provide legal advice to presiding officer if person served in investigatory or prosecutorial capacity).”

Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. v. Patton, 93 P.3d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “§ 1983 claim, the court held that because WBC had failed to pursue avail *943 able disqualification procedures under K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 77-514, WBC could not claim denial of due process.”

Doe v. Kansas Dep't of Human Resources, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 4× “hat he was not an employee of the Division and the director was not his supervisor; that the reasons for dismissal of the subpoena had been addressed in a previous order; that Judge Bullock’s dicta was not applicable because an evidentiary hearing was going to be held; and that…”

In Re Westboro Baptist Church, 189 P.3d 535 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “In the action, WBC asked for an order requiring the four members to answer the proffered voir dire questions. Moreover, WBC’s petition alleged a cause of action under 42 U.”

Miller v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs, 352 P.3d 1053 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 77-514(a). At this hearing, the assigned presiding officer shall make inquiry as to all facts connected with the termination.”

In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

In re Tax Appeals of Lyerla Trust - ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

Miller v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs (Kan. 2017). “An administrative law judge (ALJ) was designated to preside over the case pursuant to K.S.A. 77-514. The ALJ heard witnesses and considered evidence over a 3- day hearing.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 77-514(a) — 5 cases

Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 885 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1994). “It observes that K.S.A. 77-514 permits one member of a board to preside over a hearing.”

In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). “hat he was not an employee of the Division and the director was not his supervisor; that the reasons for dismissal of the subpoena had been addressed in a previous order; that Judge Bullock's dicta was not applicable because an evidentiary hearing was going to be held; and that…”

Doe v. Kansas Dep't of Human Resources, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). “hat he was not an employee of the Division and the director was not his supervisor; that the reasons for dismissal of the subpoena had been addressed in a previous order; that Judge Bullock’s dicta was not applicable because an evidentiary hearing was going to be held; and that…”

Miller v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs, 352 P.3d 1053 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 77-514(a). At this hearing, the assigned presiding officer shall make inquiry as to all facts connected with the termination.”

Minges v. Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Bd. (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 77-514(b) — 4 cases

In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

In re Tax Appeals of Lyerla Trust - ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

— K.S.A. § 77-514(c) — 7 cases

Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. v. Patton, 93 P.3d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 1983 claim, the court held that because WBC had failed to pursue avail *943 able disqualification procedures under K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 77-514, WBC could not claim denial of due process.”

In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

In re Tax Appeals of Lyerla Trust - ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

— K.S.A. § 77-514(e) — 5 cases

Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 885 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1994). “It observes that K.S.A. 77-514 permits one member of a board to preside over a hearing.”

In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

In re Tax Appeals of Lyerla Trust - ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 77-514(b), (c); K.S.A. 2011 Supp.”

— K.S.A. § 77-514(h) — 1 case

Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 238 P.3d 731 (Kan. 2010). “See K.S.A. 77-514(h) (person shall not provide legal advice to presiding officer if person served in investigatory or prosecutorial capacity).”

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.