K.S.A. » Chapter 77

K.S.A. § 77-607

Persons entitled to review; final agency action

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

77-607. Persons entitled to review; final agency action. (a) A person who qualifies under this act regarding (1) standing (K.S.A. 77-611), (2) exhaustion of administrative remedies (K.S.A. 77-612) and (3) time for filing the petition for judicial review (K.S.A. 77-613) and other applicable provisions of law regarding bond, compliance and other preconditions is entitled to judicial review of final agency action, whether or not the person has sought judicial review of any related nonfinal agency action.

(b) For purposes of this section and K.S.A. 77-608:

(1) "Final agency action" means the whole or a part of any agency action other than nonfinal agency action;

(2) "Nonfinal agency action" means the whole or a part of an agency determination, investigation, proceeding, hearing, conference or other process that the agency intends or is reasonably believed to intend to be preliminary, preparatory, procedural or intermediate with regard to subsequent agency action of that agency or another agency.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 7; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Hamlin v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hamlin v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2009) kan · cites it 14× “” The only other provisions of the KJRA that reference petitioners’ entitlement to judicial review of agency actions are K.S.A. 77-607 (persons entitled to review of final agency actions) and K.”
Ryser v. State (2012) kan · cites it 4× “77-612; and (2) tire Board’s issuance of the subpoena was a nonfinal agency action and Ryser failed to seek to file an interlocutory appeal under K.S.A. 77-607 before filing her application for judicial review.”
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Commission (2011) kan · cites it 5× “That statute permits review of a nonfinal agency action under certain limited circumstances: “A person is entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the…”
Friedman v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (2009) kan · cites it 3× “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was “entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and “(b)…”
Friedman v. KAN. STATE BD. OF HEALING ARTS (2009) kan · cites it 3× “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was "entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: "(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and "(b)…”
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery (1998) kan · cites it 4× “" K.S.A. 77-607(b)(1) and (2) provide: "(1) `Final agency action' means the whole or a part of any agency action other than nonfinal agency action; "(2) `Nonfinal agency action' means the whole or a part of an agency determination, investigation, proceeding, hearing, conference…”
Rebel v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2009) kan · cites it 4× “77-614(b)(5) is referring to” K.S.A. 77-607 when a petition requests review of a final agency decision.”
In Re Fleet for Relief From a Tax Grievance (2012) kan “74-2426(c) (BOTA orders subject to KJRA); K.S.A. 77-607(defining persons entitled to judicial review); K.”
Norris v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review (2014) kanctapp · cites it 3× “Given that judicial review generally is provided for a “final agency action,” K.S.A. 77-607(a), “final order” and “final agency action” are synonymous.”
Guss v. FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY (2008) kanctapp · cites it 2× “” See K.S.A. 77-607(b)(2). A “final agency action” is simply any agency action other than a non-final agency action.”
Pierson v. City of Topeka (2018) kanctapp · cites it 6× “) K.S.A. 77-607(a). Without final agency action, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.”
State v. Ernesti (2010) kan “See K.S.A. 77-607; K.S.A. 77-610. Although these initial steps on which the State’s argument is based are correct, those steps do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the KJRA applies to this appeal.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 77-607(a) — 13 cases
Hamlin v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2009) kan “” The only other provisions of the KJRA that reference petitioners’ entitlement to judicial review of agency actions are K.S.A. 77-607 (persons entitled to review of final agency actions) and K.”
Rebel v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2009) kan “77-614(b)(5) is referring to” K.S.A. 77-607 when a petition requests review of a final agency decision.”
Friedman v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (2009) kan “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was “entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and “(b)…”
Friedman v. KAN. STATE BD. OF HEALING ARTS (2009) kan “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was "entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: "(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and "(b)…”
Norris v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review (2014) kanctapp “Given that judicial review generally is provided for a “final agency action,” K.S.A. 77-607(a), “final order” and “final agency action” are synonymous.”
— K.S.A. § 77-607(a)(2) — 2 cases
Hamlin v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2009) kan “” The only other provisions of the KJRA that reference petitioners’ entitlement to judicial review of agency actions are K.S.A. 77-607 (persons entitled to review of final agency actions) and K.”
Pearson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (2018) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b) — 6 cases
Kansas Pipeline Partnership v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n (1996) kanctapp
Blomgren v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2008) kanctapp
Johnson v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2001) kanctapp
Cimarex Energy Co. v. Seward County Board of County Commissioners (2007) kanctapp
State Bank Commissioner v. Emery (1994) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(1) — 10 cases
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery (1998) kan “" K.S.A. 77-607(b)(1) and (2) provide: "(1) `Final agency action' means the whole or a part of any agency action other than nonfinal agency action; "(2) `Nonfinal agency action' means the whole or a part of an agency determination, investigation, proceeding, hearing, conference…”
Jones v. State (2005) kan
Norris v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review (2014) kanctapp “Given that judicial review generally is provided for a “final agency action,” K.S.A. 77-607(a), “final order” and “final agency action” are synonymous.”
Pierson v. City of Topeka (2018) kanctapp “) K.S.A. 77-607(a). Without final agency action, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.”
Wiest v. Kansas Bd. of Regents (2002) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(2) — 19 cases
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Commission (2011) kan “That statute permits review of a nonfinal agency action under certain limited circumstances: “A person is entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the…”
Ryser v. State (2012) kan “77-612; and (2) tire Board’s issuance of the subpoena was a nonfinal agency action and Ryser failed to seek to file an interlocutory appeal under K.S.A. 77-607 before filing her application for judicial review.”
Friedman v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (2009) kan “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was “entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and “(b)…”
Friedman v. KAN. STATE BD. OF HEALING ARTS (2009) kan “Accordingly, under the plain statutory language of the KJRA, Friedman was "entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: "(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and "(b)…”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman (2018) ksd
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(l) — 7 cases
Heiland v. Dunnick (2001) kan
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Commission (2011) kan “That statute permits review of a nonfinal agency action under certain limited circumstances: “A person is entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action only if: “(a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.A. 77-607 for judicial review of the…”
Guss v. FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY (2008) kanctapp “” See K.S.A. 77-607(b)(2). A “final agency action” is simply any agency action other than a non-final agency action.”
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery (1998) kan “" K.S.A. 77-607(b)(1) and (2) provide: "(1) `Final agency action' means the whole or a part of any agency action other than nonfinal agency action; "(2) `Nonfinal agency action' means the whole or a part of an agency determination, investigation, proceeding, hearing, conference…”
Clawson v. State, Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources (2013) kanctapp
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.