Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-526 (2026)

Orders, initial and final; exception for state corporation commission

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-526. Orders, initial and final; exception for state corporation commission. (a) If the presiding officer is the agency head or designated in accordance with subsection (g) of K.S.A. 77-514, and amendments thereto, the presiding officer shall render a final order.

(b) If the presiding officer is neither the agency head nor designated in accordance with subsection (g) of K.S.A. 77-514, and amendments thereto, the presiding officer shall render an initial order, which becomes a final order unless reviewed in accordance with K.S.A. 77-527 and amendments thereto.

(c) A final order or initial order shall include, separately stated, findings of fact, conclusions of law and policy reasons for the decision if it is an exercise of the state agency's discretion, for all aspects of the order, including the remedy prescribed and, if applicable, the action taken on a petition for stay of effectiveness. Findings of fact, if set forth in language that is no more than mere repetition or paraphrase of the relevant provision of law, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record to support the findings. The order shall also include a statement of the available procedures and time limits for seeking reconsideration, administrative review or other administrative relief. An initial order shall include a statement of any circumstances under which the initial order, without further notice, may become a final order. If the presiding officer has been designated in accordance with subsection (g) of K.S.A. 77-514, and amendments thereto, the final order shall so state. Any final order, for which a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for seeking judicial review, and any initial order, for which further administrative review is not available, shall state the agency officer to receive service of a petition for judicial review on behalf of the agency.

(d) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively upon the evidence of record in the adjudicative proceeding and on matters officially noticed in that proceeding.

(e) If a substitute presiding officer is appointed pursuant to K.S.A. 77-514 and amendments thereto, the substitute presiding officer shall use any existing record and may conduct any further proceedings appropriate in the interests of justice.

(f) The presiding officer may allow the parties a designated amount of time after conclusion of the hearing for the submission of proposed findings.

(g) A final order or initial order pursuant to this section shall be rendered in writing and served within 30 days after conclusion of the hearing or after submission of proposed findings in accordance with subsection (f) unless this period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown. If extended for good cause, such good cause shall be set forth in writing on or before expiration of the 30 days.

(h) The presiding officer shall cause copies of the order to be served on each party and, if the order is an initial order, on the agency head in the manner prescribed by K.S.A. 77-531 and amendments thereto.

(i) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, if the presiding officer in a hearing before the state corporation commission is not the agency head, the presiding officer shall not render an initial order but shall make written findings and recommendations to the commission. The commission shall render and serve a final order within 60 days after conclusion of the hearing or after submission of proposed findings in accordance with subsection (f) unless this period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown. If extended for good cause, such good cause shall be set forth in writing on or before expiration of the 60 days.

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 26; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 13; L. 1995, ch. 175, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Dees v. Marion-florence Unified Sch. Dist. No. 408, 149 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dees v. Marion-florence Unified Sch. Dist. No. 408, 149 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “2d 320 (1988), this court construed the time limit provision of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-526(g), which was a part of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.”

In Re Tax Application of Lietz Constr. Co., 47 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2002). “It notes that an administrative tribunal must set forth a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record supporting its findings of fact under K.S.A. 77-526. Wabaunsee County states that this court cannot perform a meaningful review of the case under the…”

Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018). “The panel cited the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically the requirement in K.S.A. 77-526(c) that a final order shall include "separately stated, findings of fact, conclusions of law and policy reasons for the decision if it is an exercise of the state agency's discretion,…”

Denning v. Johnson Sheriff's Civil Serv., 266 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Generally, unless required by a statute (like the Kansas Administrative Procedures Act now provides for state agencies in K.S.A. 77-526), agencies, boards, or hearing commissions are not required to make any detailed findings to support their rulings.”

Brewer v. Schalansky, 102 P.3d 1145 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “Under the KJRA, the court conducting judicial review of the agency action is limited in its review of facts by K.”

Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 248 P.3d 1287 (Kan. 2011). “The hearing officer issued an amended supplemental order to include the appeals language mandated by K.S.A. 77-526(c). The Secretary denied the subsequent request for review, ruling that the hearing officer's initial order and supplemental order would constitute the final order.”

Turner & Boisseau v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 978 P.2d 288 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “As a general rule, the order is an “initial order” if issued by a presiding officer; the order is a “final order” if issued by the agency head.”

State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 77-526(b). The PERB dissenters focused upon the effect they believed the PERB order would have on the Kansas civil service system: “This order has adverse and far-reaching implications as it attempts to strip the Secretary of Administration of legislatively vested…”

McMillan v. McKune, 135 P.3d 1258 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Similarly, McMillan requests that we reference and apply a key provision within the Administrative Procedure Act, K.S.A. 77-526(c). This statutory subsection reflects a mandatory notice of review and appeal rights within any initial or final administrative order: “The order…”

Blomgren v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 191 P.3d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 77-526 provides no specific criteria to distinguish an initial order from a final order other than an implied need for the agency head or designee to “render a final order.”

Kansas Dep't of Transp. v. Humphreys, 967 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 3× “Humphreys concludes that because the agency head has power to issue final orders under K.S.A. 77-526(c) of KAPA, the Board has all the powers of the agency head, which include the power to issue orders modifying unreasonable agency actions.”

Expert Env't Control, Inc. v. Walker, 761 P.2d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Expert’s response to KDHE’s motion to dismiss claimed that the KDHE hearing officer failed to issue the agency’s order within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-526(g) and failure to do so rendered the April 2, 1987, order void for lack of jurisdiction.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 77-526(a) — 1 case

Blomgren v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 191 P.3d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “K.S.A. 77-526 provides no specific criteria to distinguish an initial order from a final order other than an implied need for the agency head or designee to “render a final order.”

— K.S.A. § 77-526(b) — 3 cases

Turner & Boisseau v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 978 P.2d 288 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “As a general rule, the order is an “initial order” if issued by a presiding officer; the order is a “final order” if issued by the agency head.”

Cunningham v. Andersen (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 77-526(c) — 10 cases

McMillan v. McKune, 135 P.3d 1258 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “Similarly, McMillan requests that we reference and apply a key provision within the Administrative Procedure Act, K.S.A. 77-526(c). This statutory subsection reflects a mandatory notice of review and appeal rights within any initial or final administrative order: “The order…”

Kansas Dep't of Transp. v. Humphreys, 967 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1998). “Humphreys concludes that because the agency head has power to issue final orders under K.S.A. 77-526(c) of KAPA, the Board has all the powers of the agency head, which include the power to issue orders modifying unreasonable agency actions.”

Price v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 176 P.3d 1002 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).

— K.S.A. § 77-526(d) — 1 case

Brewer v. Schalansky, 102 P.3d 1145 (Kan. 2004). “Under the KJRA, the court conducting judicial review of the agency action is limited in its review of facts by K.”

— K.S.A. § 77-526(g) — 6 cases

Dees v. Marion-florence Unified Sch. Dist. No. 408, 149 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 320 (1988), this court construed the time limit provision of K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-526(g), which was a part of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.”

Expert Env't Control, Inc. v. Walker, 761 P.2d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Expert’s response to KDHE’s motion to dismiss claimed that the KDHE hearing officer failed to issue the agency’s order within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-526(g) and failure to do so rendered the April 2, 1987, order void for lack of jurisdiction.”

DeBerry v. Kansas State Bd. of Acct., 124 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

In re Equalization Appeal of Target Corp. (Kan. 2020).

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.