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

K.S.A. § 77-608 (2026)

Same; nonfinal agency action

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

77-608. Same; nonfinal agency action. 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 related final agency action; and

(b) postponement of judicial review would result in an inadequate remedy or irreparable harm disproportionate to the public benefit derived from postponement.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 8; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · 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 7× “77-607 (persons entitled to review of final agency actions) and K.S.A. 77-608 (persons entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency actions).”
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 6× “However, unlike the appellant here, Friedman apparently recognized the interlocutory nature of his appeal and sought application of K.S.A. 77-608. That statute permits review of a nonfinal agency action under certain limited circumstances: “A person is entitled to interlocutory…”
Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 77-608. Obviously, Friedman would likely qualify for a review of the final agency action on the jurisdiction question.”
Friedman v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 4× “77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and "(b) postponement of judicial review would result in an inadequate remedy or irreparable harm disproportionate to the public benefit derived from postponement.”
Ryser v. State, 284 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 77-608. But despite the broad language of the KJRA regarding its application to judicial review of final and nonfinal agency actions, K.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018). · cites it 3× “As such, Petitioners' petition, seen as a petition for interlocutory review, would fail for the reason that K.S.A. 77-608's "non-final", interim, relief could simply not be sustained under K.”
CITIZENS'Util. RATEPAYER BD. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “SWBT argues that K.S.A. 77-608 limits judicial review to "final agency action" and that KCC's protective order is not a final agency action.”
Kansas Pipeline P'ship v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 916 P.2d 76 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “77-607(b), K.S.A. 77-608. Merits In orders mailed April 21 and 24, 1995, the KCC suspended the effective dates of the contracts for 180 days of their filing on March 31,1995; the WRI rate request and the KPP contract dockets were consolidated.”
Kansas Sunset Assocs. v. Kansas Dep't of Health & Env't, 818 P.2d 797 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “K.S.A. 77-608. K.S.A. 77-622(b) states: “The court may grant other appropriate relief, whether mandatory, injunctive or declaratory; preliminary or final; temporary or permanent; equitable or legal.”
Williams Gas Pipelines Cent., Inc. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 7 P.3d 311 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “An interlocutory review of nonfinal agency action can be taken “only if: (a) It appears likely that the person will qualify under K.S.”
Citizens' Util. Ratepayer Bd. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 941 P.2d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “SWBT argues that K.S.A. 77-608 limits judicial review to “final agency action” and that KCC’s protective order is not a final agency action.”
Pesina v. Aegis Processing Solutions, 514 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “S.A. 77-608 because postponement of judicial review would result in an inadequate remedy or irreparable harm disproportionate to the public benefit derived from postponement; (3) the Board's finding that Pesina's injury is the result of a repetitive work activity at Aegis is not…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
K.S.A. § 77-608(a): 1 case
Pesina v. Aegis Processing Solutions, 514 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “S.A. 77-608 because postponement of judicial review would result in an inadequate remedy or irreparable harm disproportionate to the public benefit derived from postponement; (3) the Board's finding that Pesina's injury is the result of a repetitive work activity at Aegis is not…”
K.S.A. § 77-608(b): 7 cases
Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “” K.S.A. 77-608. Obviously, Friedman would likely qualify for a review of the final agency action on the jurisdiction question.”
Hamlin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009). “77-607 (persons entitled to review of final agency actions) and K.S.A. 77-608 (persons entitled to interlocutory review of nonfinal agency actions).”
Friedman v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 199 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2009). “77-607 for judicial review of the related final agency action; and "(b) postponement of judicial review would result in an inadequate remedy or irreparable harm disproportionate to the public benefit derived from postponement.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Kan. 2018). “As such, Petitioners' petition, seen as a petition for interlocutory review, would fail for the reason that K.S.A. 77-608's "non-final", interim, relief could simply not be sustained under K.”
Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 256 P.3d 867 (Kan. 2011). “However, unlike the appellant here, Friedman apparently recognized the interlocutory nature of his appeal and sought application of K.S.A. 77-608. That statute permits review of a nonfinal agency action under certain limited circumstances: “A person is entitled to interlocutory…”
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.