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

K.S.A. § 77-607 (2026)

Persons entitled to review; final agency action

✓ current as of May 2026
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 Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hamlin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009). · 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, 284 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2012). · 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. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011). · 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 Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · 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, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · 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, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998). · 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 Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 551 (Kan. 2009). · 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, 272 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2012). “74-2426(c) (BOTA orders subject to KJRA); K.S.A. 77-607(defining persons entitled to judicial review); K.”
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 321 P.3d 28 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · 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 Univ., 173 P.3d 1159 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · 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, 424 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “) K.S.A. 77-607(a). Without final agency action, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.”
State v. Ernesti, 239 P.3d 40 (Kan. 2010). “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 Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009). “” 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 Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 551 (Kan. 2009). “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 Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “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, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “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 Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 321 P.3d 28 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “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 Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009). “” 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, 430 P.3d 475 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b) — 6 cases
Kansas Pipeline P'ship v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 76 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
Blomgren v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 191 P.3d 320 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Johnson v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 27 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Cimarex Energy Co. v. Seward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 164 P.3d 833 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State Bank Comm'r v. Emery, 880 P.2d 783 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(1) — 10 cases
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998). “" 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, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 321 P.3d 28 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “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, 424 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “) K.S.A. 77-607(a). Without final agency action, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issue.”
Wiest v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 40 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(2) — 19 cases
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011). “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, 284 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2012). “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 Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “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, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “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, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 77-607(b)(l) — 7 cases
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011). “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 Univ., 173 P.3d 1159 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “” 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, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998). “" 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, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
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.