Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-527 (2026)

Review of initial order; exceptions to reviewability

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-527. Review of initial order; exceptions to reviewability. (a) The agency head, upon its own motion may, and upon petition by any party or when required by law shall, review an initial order, except to the extent that:

(1) A provision of law precludes or limits state agency review of the initial order; or

(2) the agency head (A) determines to review some but not all issues, or not to exercise any review, (B) delegates its authority to review the initial order to one or more persons, unless such delegation is expressly prohibited by law, or (C) authorizes one or more persons to review the initial order, subject to further review by the agency head.

(b) A petition for review of an initial order must be filed with the agency head, or with any person designated for this purpose by rule and regulation of the state agency, within 15 days after service of the initial order. If the agency head on its own motion decides to review an initial order, the agency head shall give written notice of its intention to review the initial order within 15 days after its service. If the agency head determines not to review an initial order in response to a petition for review, the agency head shall, within 20 days after filing of the petition for review, serve on each party an order stating that review will not be exercised.

(c) The petition for review shall state its basis. If the agency head on its own motion gives notice of its intent to review an initial order, the agency head shall identify the issues that it intends to review.

(d) Subject to K.S.A. 77-621, and amendments thereto, in reviewing an initial order, the agency head or designee shall exercise all the decision-making power that the agency head or designee would have had to render a final order had the agency head or designee presided over the hearing, except to the extent that the issues subject to review are limited by a provision of law or by the agency head or designee upon notice to all parties. In reviewing findings of fact in initial orders by presiding officers, the agency head shall give due regard to the presiding officer's opportunity to observe the witnesses and to determine the credibility of witnesses. The agency head shall consider the agency record or such portions of it as have been designated by the parties.

(e) The agency head or designee shall afford each party an opportunity to present briefs and may afford each party an opportunity to present oral argument.

(f) The agency head or designee shall render a final order disposing of the proceeding or remand the matter for further proceedings with instructions to the person who rendered the initial order. Upon remanding a matter, the agency head or designee may order such temporary relief as is authorized and appropriate.

(g) A final order or an order remanding the matter for further proceedings shall be rendered in writing and served within 30 days after receipt of briefs and oral argument unless that period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown.

(h) A final order or an order remanding the matter for further proceedings under this section shall identify any difference between this order and the initial order and shall state the facts of record which support any difference in findings of fact, state the source of law which supports any difference in legal conclusions, and state the policy reasons which support any difference in the exercise of discretion. A final order under this section shall include, or incorporate by express reference to the initial order, all the matters required by subsection (c) of K.S.A. 77-526, and amendments thereto.

(i) The agency head shall cause copies of the final order or order remanding the matter for further proceedings to be served on each party in the manner prescribed by K.S.A. 77-531, and amendments thereto.

(j) Unless a petition for reconsideration is a prerequisite for seeking judicial review, a final order under this section shall state the agency officer to receive service of a petition for judicial review on behalf of the agency.

History: L. 1984, ch. 313, § 27; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 14; L. 1995, ch. 175, § 6; L. 1997, ch. 182, § 94; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 13; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 3× “Third, even if we were to overlook this factual omission because the district court considered die issue, Friedman fails to present any authority establishing a due process right to present an oral argument.”

Herrera-Gallegos v. H & H Delivery Serv., Inc., 212 P.3d 239 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “We must consider “the agency’s explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of fact.” For us to fairly consider an agency’s position should it disagree with a hearing officer’s credibility determination, an explanation of the agency’s…”

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “Instead of appealing the administrative law judge’s decision to the Board pursuant to K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 77-527, Friedman filed *751 a “Petition for Judicial Review, for Temporary Injunctive Relief and Permanent Injunctive Relief’ in Shawnee County District Court.”

Friedman v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “Instead of appealing the administrative law judge's decision to the Board pursuant to K.S.A.2007 Supp. 77-527, Friedman filed a "Petition for Judicial Review, for Temporary Injunctive Relief and Permanent Injunctive Relief" in Shawnee County District Court.”

Sanders Ex Rel. Rayl v. Kansas Dept. of Soc. & Rehabil. Servs., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(B); § 75-3306; K.A.”

Pittsburg State Univ. v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 36 P.3d 853 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “In its amended final order PERB advised PSU/KNEA of the following: “Pursuant to K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 77-527(j), K.S.A. 77-613(e), and K.”

Schmidt v. Kansas State Bd. of Technical Professions, 21 P.3d 542 (Kan. 2001). “The Board denied Schmidt’s petition for review pursuant to K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 77-527 and determined that the initial order would become the final order.”

Hill v. Kansas Dep't of Labor, 210 P.3d 647 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “An employer found in violation of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 44-532(b) is subject to criminal and civil penalties.”

State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 77-527(a). PERB denied the petition for review in a 3-2 decision.”

Turner & Boisseau v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 978 P.2d 288 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Before considering appellants’ substantive arguments, we must first address a jurisdictional question. Under the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.”

In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004). “44-5,120(g) (1993 Furse), and $794.55 in costs. Butanda petitioned the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources to review the amended order pursuant to K.”

Sanders ex rel. Rayl v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(B); § 75-3306; K.A.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 77-527(a) — 2 cases

State, Dep't of Admin. v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 894 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 77-527(a). PERB denied the petition for review in a 3-2 decision.”

Twin Valley Developmental Servs., Inc. v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 146 P.3d 234 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

— K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases

Sanders Ex Rel. Rayl v. Kansas Dept. of Soc. & Rehabil. Servs., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2004). “See K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(B); § 75-3306; K.A.”

Sanders ex rel. Rayl v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 317 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 2004). “See K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(B); § 75-3306; K.A.”

— K.S.A. § 77-527(a)(2)(a) — 1 case

Bd. of Educ. v. Kansas Dep't of Human Resources, 856 P.2d 1343 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

— K.S.A. § 77-527(b) — 2 cases

Turner & Boisseau v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 978 P.2d 288 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “Before considering appellants’ substantive arguments, we must first address a jurisdictional question. Under the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, K.”

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

— K.S.A. § 77-527(c) — 4 cases

Excel Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 864 P.2d 220 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

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

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

Sullivan v. Kansas State Bd. of Nursing (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 77-527(d) — 5 cases

Water Dist. No. 1 v. Kansas Water Auth., 866 P.2d 1076 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).

Myers v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

Shine v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

Aziz v. Kansas Dept. for Child. & Families (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

In re Licensure of Shelly Ann Vandevord Day Care Home (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 77-527(e) — 2 cases

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). “Third, even if we were to overlook this factual omission because the district court considered die issue, Friedman fails to present any authority establishing a due process right to present an oral argument.”

Excel Corp. v. Kansas Human Rights Comm'n, 864 P.2d 220 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

— K.S.A. § 77-527(j) — 1 case

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.