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

K.S.A. § 77-606 (2026)

Act exclusive means of review

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

77-606. Act exclusive means of review. In accordance with K.S.A. 77-603 and amendments thereto, this act establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 6; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “The section of the Model Act that corresponds to K.S.A. 77-606 is § 5-101, which states: “This Act establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.”
Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “The relief Friedman sought through an “injunction” was a court order reversing the ALJ’s ruling that the Board had jurisdiction to bring the disciplinary action, i.”
Friedman v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “The relief Friedman sought through an "injunction" was a court order reversing the ALJ's ruling that the Board had jurisdiction to bring the disciplinary action, i.”
Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018). “These observations and inaccuracy in the count of Harsay's grants when the College Committee reported its outcome to the University Committee combined to make the panel lose confidence in its ability to perform its mandatory role under the KJRA.”
Chalmers v. Burrough, 494 P.3d 128 (Kan. 2021). “As we have noted, the UIFSA is explicitly opposite—it acknowledges that the court's authority to adjudicate support orders exists outside of the UIFSA.”
Ryser v. State, 284 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2012). “77-603(c) (containing no exemptions for agency actions under the Healing *459 Arts Act); K.S.A. 77-606 (establishing the KJRA as “the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action,” subject to K.”
10th Street Med., Inc. v. State, 210 P.3d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “77-603(a); K.S.A. 77-606. In Jones , the Supreme Court held that the Act was the plaintiff s exclusive avenue into court for a breach of contract claim against the State when it concerned the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Service’s failure to perform an “agency action”…”
Karns v. Kansas State Bd. of Agric., 923 P.2d 78 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 77-606. The requirements for a petition for judicial review under the KJRA are contained at K.”
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001). “Application of the Kansas Act for judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions The KJRA applies to all agencies and all proceedings for judicial review and civil enforcement of agency actions not specifically exempted by statute.”
Pittsburg State Univ. v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 36 P.3d 853 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 77-606. The requirements for a petition for judicial review under the KJRA are contained at K.”
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005). “77-602(b)(3) includes an agency’s “performance of, or failure to perform, any other duty, function or activity, discretionary or otherwise.”
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). “Likewise, the statutory language governing review of agency decisions found in K.S.A. 77-606, et seq., again compared by both the Water District and the City, is of limited utility.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
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.