K.S.A. » Chapter 77
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-525 (2026)

Ex parte communications; exemption for certain agencies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

77-525. Ex parte communications; exemption for certain agencies. (a) A presiding officer serving in an adjudicative proceeding may not communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in the proceeding while the proceeding is pending, with any party or participant, with any person who has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the proceeding or with any person who has served in an investigatory or prosecutorial capacity or presided at a previous stage of the proceeding, without notice and opportunity for all parties to participate in the communication.

(b) A member of a multimember panel of presiding officers may communicate with other members of the panel regarding a matter pending before the panel, and any presiding officer may receive aid from staff assistants if the assistants do not:

(1) Receive ex parte communications of a type that the presiding officer would be prohibited from receiving; or

(2) furnish, augment, diminish or modify the evidence in the record.

(c) Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters specifically authorized by statute, no party to an adjudicative proceeding, and no person who has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the proceeding or who presided at a previous stage of the proceeding, may directly or indirectly communicate in connection with any issue in that proceeding, while the proceeding is pending, with any person serving as presiding officer unless notice and an opportunity are given all parties to participate in the communication.

(d) If, before serving as presiding officer in an adjudicative proceeding, a person receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the person, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication in the manner prescribed in subsection (e).

(e) A presiding officer who receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section shall place on the record of the pending matter all written communications received, all written responses to the communications and a memorandum stating the substance of all oral communications received, all responses made and the identity of each person from whom the presiding officer received an ex parte communication and shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Any party desiring to rebut the ex parte communication must be allowed to do so, upon requesting the opportunity for rebuttal within 10 days after notice of the communication.

(f) If necessary to eliminate the effect of an ex parte communication received in violation of this section, a presiding officer who receives the communication may be disqualified and the portions of the record pertaining to the communication may be sealed by protective order.

(g) The state agency shall, and any party may, report any willful violation of this section to appropriate authorities for any disciplinary proceedings provided by law. In addition, each state agency, by rule and regulation, may provide for appropriate sanctions, including default, for any violations of this section.

(h) This section shall not apply to adjudicative proceedings before:

(1) The state corporation commission. Such proceedings shall be subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 77-545, and amendments thereto;

(2) the commissioner of insurance concerning any rate, or any rule, regulation or practice pertaining to the rates over which the commissioner has jurisdiction or adjudicative proceedings held pursuant to the Kansas insurance holding companies act. Such proceedings shall be subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 77-546, and amendments thereto; and

(3) the director of taxation. Such proceedings shall be subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 77-548, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 25; L. 1986, ch. 362, § 7; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 12; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 12; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1990–2006 · leading case: Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 2× “17 (2005); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-525 (1997); Tenn.Code Ann.”
Gamblian v. City of Parsons, 931 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1997). “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. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). “17 (2005); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-525 (1997); Tenn. Code Ann.”
In Re Application of Park Comm'rs for Ad Valorem, 799 P.2d 505 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “” K.S.A. 77-525(c). However, here the communication complained of was delivered after the termination of the proceeding.”
Twin Valley Developmental Servs., Inc. v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 146 P.3d 234 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Twin Valley contends that SRS violated K.S.A. 77-525 by not providing it a copy of Hawkins’ response to its complaint, and by such inaction, SRS attempted to hide its ex parte communication with Hawkins.”
State v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 851 P.2d 1017 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The second issue raised is whether the KCCR violated the prohibition on ex parte communications contained in K.S.A. 77-525(a). That statute provides: ■ “A .”
Supermarket Express, L.L.C., t/a Lagoon v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “17; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-525 ; 5 Me. Rev. Stat.”
— K.S.A. § 77-525(a) — 2 cases
Twin Valley Developmental Servs., Inc. v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 146 P.3d 234 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “On appeal, Twin Valley contends that SRS violated K.S.A. 77-525 by not providing it a copy of Hawkins’ response to its complaint, and by such inaction, SRS attempted to hide its ex parte communication with Hawkins.”
State v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 851 P.2d 1017 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “The second issue raised is whether the KCCR violated the prohibition on ex parte communications contained in K.S.A. 77-525(a). That statute provides: ■ “A .”
— K.S.A. § 77-525(b) — 1 case
State v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 851 P.2d 1017 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “The second issue raised is whether the KCCR violated the prohibition on ex parte communications contained in K.S.A. 77-525(a). That statute provides: ■ “A .”
— K.S.A. § 77-525(c) — 1 case
In Re Application of Park Comm'rs for Ad Valorem, 799 P.2d 505 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “” K.S.A. 77-525(c). However, here the communication complained of was delivered after the termination of the proceeding.”
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.