77-613.
Time for filing petition; service of order, pleading or other matter.
Subject to other requirements of this act or of another statute:
(a) A petition for judicial review of a rule and regulation may be filed at any time, except as otherwise provided by law.
(b) If reconsideration has not been requested and is not a prerequisite for seeking judicial review, a petition for judicial review of a final order shall be filed within 30 days after service of the order.
(c) Except as provided in K.S.A.
77-631, and amendments thereto, if reconsideration has been requested or is a prerequisite for seeking judicial review, a petition for judicial review of a final order shall be filed: (1) Within 30 days after service of the order rendered upon reconsideration, unless a further petition for reconsideration is required under K.S.A.
66-118b, and amendments thereto; (2) within 30 days after service of an order denying the request for reconsideration; or (3) in proceedings before the Kansas corporation commission, within 30 days of the date the request for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied.
(d) A petition for judicial review of agency action other than a rule and regulation or final order shall be filed within 30 days after the agency action, but the time is extended:
(1) During the pendency of the petitioner's timely attempts to exhaust administrative remedies; and
(2) during any period that the petitioner did not know and was under no duty to discover, or did not know and was under a duty to discover but could not reasonably have discovered, that the agency had taken the action or that the agency action had a sufficient effect to confer standing upon the petitioner to obtain judicial review under this act.
(e) Service of an order, pleading or other matter shall be made upon the parties to the agency proceeding and their attorneys of record, if any, by:
(1) Delivering a copy of it to them;
(2) mailing a copy of it to them at their last known addresses; or
(3) transmitting a copy of it to them by electronic means when authorized by supreme court rule or a local rule.
Delivery of a copy of an order, pleading or other matter means handing it to the person being served or leaving it at that person's principal place of business or residence with a person of suitable age and discretion who works or resides therein. Service shall be presumed if the presiding officer, or a person directed to make service by the presiding officer, makes a written certificate of service. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after service of an order, pleading or other matter and it is served by mail or electronic means, three days shall be added to the prescribed period. Unless reconsideration is a prerequisite for seeking judicial review, a final order shall state the agency officer to receive service of a petition for judicial review on behalf of the agency.
History:
L. 1984, ch. 338, § 13; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 6; L. 1995, ch. 175, § 10; L. 2016, ch. 63, § 8; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998).
· cites it 32× “, was the Reifschneiders' only remedy and that their action had not been filed within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 77-613(b). Our jurisdiction is based on K.”
In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 11× “And even if this is not always the case, a lessee who believes some exceptional circumstances exist remains free to present the county appraiser with those circumstances to consider deviation under K.”
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 14× “See K.S.A. 77-613(b) and (d). However, once Heiland attempted to pursue an administrative remedy, the decision of the administrative agency denying his claim became an order.”
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 13× “It also contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 77-613, which provides for judicial review from a variety of agency decisions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the issuance of final orders, and other agency actions.”
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 367 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 6× “K.S.A. 77-613. As stated above, Norris’ petition for judicial review was filed 36 days after the date on the Boards initial decision.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. KAN COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, 855 P.2d 905 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 16× “The district court held it lacked jurisdiction because the petition filed pursuant to K.S.A. 77-613 was untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the district court in United Steelworkers of America v.”
Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996).
· cites it 7× “” The time requirement for filing a notice of appeal in the Workers Compensation Act was eliminated and the time requirement of the Act for Judicial Review and Enforcement of Agency Actions (K.S.A. 77-613) appears to have been substituted in its place.”
Pittsburg State Univ. v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 36 P.3d 853 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “On appeal, KBR/PSU and KDHR argue that PSU/KNEA did not strictly comply with the notice requirements of the KJRA because PSU/KNEA did not serve PERB’s agency head.”
Moser v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 213 P.3d 1061 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 6× “8-259 applied in this case; that KDR’s November 8, 2005, notice of suspension sent to Moser was an order of suspension; and that the district court had erred in ruling that the 30-day rule of K.”
Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 3× “While the action was pending, the 30-day jurisdictional time limit expired.”
Guss v. Fort Hays State Univ., 173 P.3d 1159 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “The district court did not err in concluding that the University’s letter of February 24, 2005, constituted a final order despite the remaining ministerial task of calculating the value of Guss’ unused sick leave, and despite the failure of the letter to strictly comply with the…”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(a) — 1 case
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
“It also contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 77-613, which provides for judicial review from a variety of agency decisions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the issuance of final orders, and other agency actions.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(b) — 27 cases
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998).
“, was the Reifschneiders' only remedy and that their action had not been filed within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 77-613(b). Our jurisdiction is based on K.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. KAN COMM'N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, 855 P.2d 905 (Kan. 1993).
“The district court held it lacked jurisdiction because the petition filed pursuant to K.S.A. 77-613 was untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the district court in United Steelworkers of America v.”
Pittsburg State Univ. v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 36 P.3d 853 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
“On appeal, KBR/PSU and KDHR argue that PSU/KNEA did not strictly comply with the notice requirements of the KJRA because PSU/KNEA did not serve PERB’s agency head.”
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 367 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2016).
“K.S.A. 77-613. As stated above, Norris’ petition for judicial review was filed 36 days after the date on the Boards initial decision.”
In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021).
“And even if this is not always the case, a lessee who believes some exceptional circumstances exist remains free to present the county appraiser with those circumstances to consider deviation under K.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(c) — 5 cases
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 367 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2016).
“K.S.A. 77-613. As stated above, Norris’ petition for judicial review was filed 36 days after the date on the Boards initial decision.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(c)(2) — 2 cases
Norris v. Kansas Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 367 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2016).
“K.S.A. 77-613. As stated above, Norris’ petition for judicial review was filed 36 days after the date on the Boards initial decision.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(d) — 22 cases
Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018).
“While the action was pending, the 30-day jurisdictional time limit expired.”
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
“It also contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 77-613, which provides for judicial review from a variety of agency decisions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the issuance of final orders, and other agency actions.”
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
“See K.S.A. 77-613(b) and (d). However, once Heiland attempted to pursue an administrative remedy, the decision of the administrative agency denying his claim became an order.”
In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021).
“And even if this is not always the case, a lessee who believes some exceptional circumstances exist remains free to present the county appraiser with those circumstances to consider deviation under K.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(d)(1) — 2 cases
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
“It also contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 77-613, which provides for judicial review from a variety of agency decisions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the issuance of final orders, and other agency actions.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(d)(2) — 3 cases
Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).
“It also contradicts the plain language of K.S.A. 77-613, which provides for judicial review from a variety of agency decisions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, the issuance of final orders, and other agency actions.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(d)(l) — 1 case
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
“See K.S.A. 77-613(b) and (d). However, once Heiland attempted to pursue an administrative remedy, the decision of the administrative agency denying his claim became an order.”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(e) — 21 cases
Reifschneider v. Kansas State Lottery, 969 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1998).
“, was the Reifschneiders' only remedy and that their action had not been filed within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 77-613(b). Our jurisdiction is based on K.”
In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021).
“And even if this is not always the case, a lessee who believes some exceptional circumstances exist remains free to present the county appraiser with those circumstances to consider deviation under K.”
Heiland v. Dunnick, 19 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
“See K.S.A. 77-613(b) and (d). However, once Heiland attempted to pursue an administrative remedy, the decision of the administrative agency denying his claim became an order.”
Guss v. Fort Hays State Univ., 173 P.3d 1159 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
“The district court did not err in concluding that the University’s letter of February 24, 2005, constituted a final order despite the remaining ministerial task of calculating the value of Guss’ unused sick leave, and despite the failure of the letter to strictly comply with the…”
— K.S.A. § 77-613(e)(1) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 77-613(e)(3) — 1 case
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.