77-524.
Evidence; official notice.
(a) A presiding officer need not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but shall give the parties reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and the presiding officer shall act reasonably without partiality. The presiding officer shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Evidence need not be excluded solely because it is hearsay.
(b) All testimony of parties and witnesses shall be made under oath or affirmation and the presiding officer shall have the power to administer an oath or affirmation for that purpose.
(c) Statements presented by nonparties in accordance with paragraph (c) of K.S.A. 77-523 may be received as evidence.
(d) Any part of the evidence may be received in written form if doing so will expedite the hearing without substantial prejudice to the interests of any party.
(e) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of a copy or excerpt. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original if available.
(f) Official notice may be taken of (1) any matter that could be judicially noticed in the courts of this state, (2) the record of other proceedings before the state agency, (3) technical or scientific matters within the state agency's specialized knowledge, and (4) codes of standards that have been adopted by an agency of the United States, of this state or of another state or by a nationally recognized organization or association. Parties shall be notified before or during the hearing, or before the issuance of any initial or final order that is based in whole or in part on matters or material noticed, of the specific matters or material noticed and the source thereof, including any staff memoranda and data, and be afforded an opportunity to contest and rebut the matters or material so noticed.
History:
L. 1984, ch. 313, § 24; July 1, 1985.
Notes of Decisions
Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing, 437 P.3d 992 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “But K.S.A. 77-524(a), based on a model state-administrative-procedure statute, is quite similar to K.”
Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002).
“K.S.A. 77-524(a). Thus, the fact the presiding officer allowed Julia's statements to be admitted into evidence through reports and testimony of others was not arbitrary and capricious.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).
“77-521(a), and which frees the presiding officer from being "bound by technical rules of evidence," K.S.A. 77-524(a). CFC complains that it was prevented from deposing Bank Commissioner *1132 Thull who signed the Declaration and that the presiding officer Splichal imputed a…”
In re Equalization Appeal of Walmart Stores, Inc., 513 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2022).
“" See K.S.A. 77-524. And under the Kansas Code of Evidence, "If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,…”
Gamblian v. City of Parsons, 931 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1997).
“77-522); and rules of evidence (K.S.A. 77-524; K.S.A. 77-525). If Gamblian’s family disagreed with the outcome of the hearing, then the family could have appealed the decision to a district court under the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.”
Miller v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs, 352 P.3d 1053 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “" K.S.A. 77-524(a). If, after the hearing, the presiding officer determines that the appraiser should be terminated, then the presiding officer shall issue an order removing such appraiser.”
Hart v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 2 P.3d 797 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
“861 (1993); K.S.A. 77-524. As previously stated, the purpose of the Board is to have various experts in the medical profession patrol and regulate the healing *218 arts.”
In re the Equalization Appeal of Andover Antique Mall L.L.C., 99 P.3d 1117 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 77-524(a): “A presiding officer need not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but shall give the parties reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and the presiding officer shall act reasonably without partiality.”
Sajadi v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“Sajadi also argues that the Board's conclusion that he engaged in an aberration from the standard of care in his treatment of Patient 1 was not supported by substantial competent evidence.”
— K.S.A. § 77-524(a) — 5 cases
Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing, 437 P.3d 992 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
“But K.S.A. 77-524(a), based on a model state-administrative-procedure statute, is quite similar to K.”
Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002).
“K.S.A. 77-524(a). Thus, the fact the presiding officer allowed Julia's statements to be admitted into evidence through reports and testimony of others was not arbitrary and capricious.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).
“77-521(a), and which frees the presiding officer from being "bound by technical rules of evidence," K.S.A. 77-524(a). CFC complains that it was prevented from deposing Bank Commissioner *1132 Thull who signed the Declaration and that the presiding officer Splichal imputed a…”
Miller v. Bd. of Wabaunsee Cnty. Comm'rs, 352 P.3d 1053 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
“" K.S.A. 77-524(a). If, after the hearing, the presiding officer determines that the appraiser should be terminated, then the presiding officer shall issue an order removing such appraiser.”
In re the Equalization Appeal of Andover Antique Mall L.L.C., 99 P.3d 1117 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 77-524(a): “A presiding officer need not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but shall give the parties reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and the presiding officer shall act reasonably without partiality.”
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.