77-536.
Emergency proceedings; use, when; procedure.
(a) A state agency may use emergency proceedings: (1) In a situation involving an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare requiring immediate state agency action or (2) as otherwise provided by law.
(b) The state agency may take only such action as is necessary: (1) To prevent or avoid the immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare that justifies use of emergency adjudication or (2) to remedy a situation for which use of emergency adjudication is otherwise provided by law.
(c) The state agency shall render an order, including a brief statement of findings of fact, conclusions of law and policy reasons for the decision if it is an exercise of the state agency's discretion, to justify the state agency's decision to take the specific action and the determination of: (1) An immediate danger or (2) the existence of a situation for which use of emergency adjudication is otherwise provided by law.
(d) The state agency shall give such notice as is practicable to persons who are required to comply with the order. The order is effective when rendered. Notice under this subsection shall constitute service for the purposes of the Kansas judicial review act.
(e) After issuing an order pursuant to this section, the state agency shall proceed as quickly as feasible to complete any proceedings that would be required if the matter did not justify the use of emergency proceedings under subsection (a).
(f) The state agency record consists of any documents regarding the matter that were considered or prepared by the state agency. The state agency shall maintain these documents as its official record.
(g) Unless otherwise required by a provision of law, the state agency record need not constitute the exclusive basis for state agency action in emergency proceedings or for judicial review thereof.
History:
L. 1984, ch. 313, § 36; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 21; L. 2010, ch. 17, § 208; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Corder v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 889 P.2d 1127 (Kan. 1994).
· cites it 22× “K.S.A. 77-536 of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the Board as a state agency to use emergency proceedings.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Here, while the Commissioner, as noted, purported to act under the emergency procedures granted in the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act ( K.S.A. 77-536 ), he, to the Court's knowledge, has not yet followed through with a post-deprivation hearing ( K.”
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Count I, the abuse of process charge, alleged the defendants misused the emergency proceedings provision (K.S.A. 77-536) of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.”
Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 228 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2010).
“If the board determines an emergency exists, the board may use emergency adjudicative proceedings as provided in K.S.A. 77-536 and amendments thereto. A strike or lockout shall be construed to be an emergency.”
Bruns v. Kansas State Bd. of Technical Professions, 864 P.2d 1212 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The trial court determined that the order of January 28, 1991, was not a “final order” within the perimeters established by K.S.A. 77-536(c). The court remanded the matter to the BTP for issuance of a final order in compliance with the statute.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 29 P.3d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
““(c) This section does not preclude a state agency from taking immediate action to protect the public interest in accordance with K.S.A. 77-536 and amendments thereto.” *420 According to the Commission: “K.”
State v. Marsh, 823 P.2d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
“47-1707(c) and K.S.A. 77-536(a)(2). On the basis of the authority granted by this order, the State was authorized to seize and impound the defendant’s dogs.”
Fhsu v. Aaup, 228 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2010).
“If the board determines an emergency exists, the board may use emergency adjudicative proceedings as provided in K.S.A. 77-536 and amendments thereto. A strike or lockout shall be construed to be an emergency.”
Shine v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“In addition, as pointed out by the Board at oral argument, Shine presents no caselaw to suggest that an agency is required to launch the ex parte emergency temporary suspension procedures set out in K.S.A. 77-536 before it can find 19 that revocation is necessary to protect the…”
— K.S.A. § 77-536(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Marsh, 823 P.2d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
“47-1707(c) and K.S.A. 77-536(a)(2). On the basis of the authority granted by this order, the State was authorized to seize and impound the defendant’s dogs.”
— K.S.A. § 77-536(a)(l) — 1 case
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994).
“Count I, the abuse of process charge, alleged the defendants misused the emergency proceedings provision (K.S.A. 77-536) of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.”
— K.S.A. § 77-536(b) — 1 case
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994).
“Count I, the abuse of process charge, alleged the defendants misused the emergency proceedings provision (K.S.A. 77-536) of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.”
— K.S.A. § 77-536(c) — 1 case
Bruns v. Kansas State Bd. of Technical Professions, 864 P.2d 1212 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“The trial court determined that the order of January 28, 1991, was not a “final order” within the perimeters established by K.S.A. 77-536(c). The court remanded the matter to the BTP for issuance of a final order in compliance with the statute.”
— K.S.A. § 77-536(e) — 3 cases
Corder v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 889 P.2d 1127 (Kan. 1994).
“K.S.A. 77-536 of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the Board as a state agency to use emergency proceedings.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).
“Here, while the Commissioner, as noted, purported to act under the emergency procedures granted in the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act ( K.S.A. 77-536 ), he, to the Court's knowledge, has not yet followed through with a post-deprivation hearing ( K.”
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994).
“Count I, the abuse of process charge, alleged the defendants misused the emergency proceedings provision (K.S.A. 77-536) of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.”
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.