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

K.S.A. § 77-617 (2026)

Limitations on new issues

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

77-617. Limitations on new issues. A person may obtain judicial review of an issue that was not raised before the agency, only to the extent that:

(a) The agency did not have jurisdiction to grant an adequate remedy based on a determination of the issue;

(b) the agency action subject to judicial review is a rule and regulation and the person has not been a party in adjudicative proceedings which provided an adequate opportunity to raise the issue;

(c) the agency action subject to judicial review is an order and the person was not notified of the adjudicative proceeding; or

(d) the interests of justice would be served by judicial resolution of an issue arising from:

(1) A change in controlling law occurring after the agency action; or

(2) agency action occurring or first reasonably knowable to the person after the person exhausted the last feasible opportunity for seeking relief from the agency.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 17; L. 1987, ch. 184, § 4; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 27; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas, 317 P.3d 124 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas, 317 P.3d 124 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “On appeal, the burden of proving die invalidity of the agency action rests on the party asserting such invalidity.”
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Day, 555 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “The De Novo Nature of State Court Review Is Immaterial Even assuming for purposes of argument that Brown indeed could not raise her federal claim before the HPA, she could have raised this issue during state-court judicial review of the agency's final order.”
Hamlin v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 562 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “The only relevant reference to “issues” in the KJRA is found in K.S.A. 77-617 — which sets forth limited statutory exceptions to the rule that a person must not raise issues in a petition for judicial review that were not argued before the agency — a provision separate from the…”
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994). “KDHE first asserts that tort claims arising out of agency actions could be determined by the district court under K.S.A. 77-617(a), which allows a district court to address issues for which the administrative agency did not have jurisdiction to grant an adequate remedy.”
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Prieb Props., L.L.C., 275 P.3d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Although Taxpayer’s petition for reconsideration included the statement: “The exact same issue with the exact same parties for the exact same location was decided by the Court of Tax Appeals for years 2003 & 2004 with the results being applied to the 2005 tax year,” the Taxpayer…”
Zarda v. State, 826 P.2d 1365 (Kan. 1992). “See K.S.A. 77-617. “Although appellant asserts the unconstitutionality of the statutes and seeks extraordinary relief, its obvious complaint is that the assessed valuation' of its real property is too high.”
Dean v. State, 826 P.2d 1372 (Kan. 1992). “See K.S.A. 77-617. “. . . It appears clear that appellant was not concerned with the constitutionality of the various statutes so long as the tax increases were limited to individual lot owners and appellant was the recipient of preferential tax assessment.”
Wheatland Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Polansky, 265 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “The Division maintains that this court cannot address Wheatland’s argument because it failed to present it before the hearing officer.”
Parker v. Kansas Neurological Inst., 778 P.2d 390 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 77-617 and K.S.A. 77-619 limit the evidence and issues available for judicial review of the Board’s discretion.”
Fischer v. State Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 21 P.3d 509 (Kan. 2001). “The district court then determined that none of the exceptions set forth in K.S.A. 77-617 and K.S.A. 77-619 were applicable and that SRS had properly de *175 termined that the value of the farm property and personal property supported its finding that the farming operation was…”
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Miller, 718 P.2d 1298 (Kan. 1986). “See K.S.A. 77-617. Although appellant asserts the unconstitutionality ofthe statutes and seeks extraordinary relief, its obvious complaint is that the assessed valuation of its real property is too high.”
Rebel v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 204 P.3d 551 (Kan. 2009). “The KDR’s exhaustion argument is better understood as a claim that because Rebel did not present evidence regarding his medical condition at the administrative hearing, he did not preserve that issue for judicial review.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 77-617(a) — 3 cases
Lindenman v. Umscheid, 875 P.2d 964 (Kan. 1994). “KDHE first asserts that tort claims arising out of agency actions could be determined by the district court under K.S.A. 77-617(a), which allows a district court to address issues for which the administrative agency did not have jurisdiction to grant an adequate remedy.”
Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc. (, 321 P.3d 18 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
Reifschneider v. State, 17 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 77-617(d)(1) — 2 cases
Zimero v. Tyson Fresh Meats (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
Zimero v. Tyson Fresh Meats (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 77-617(d)(2) — 1 case
Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas, 317 P.3d 124 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “On appeal, the burden of proving die invalidity of the agency action rests on the party asserting such invalidity.”
— K.S.A. § 77-617(d)(l) — 1 case
Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas, 317 P.3d 124 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “On appeal, the burden of proving die invalidity of the agency action rests on the party asserting such invalidity.”
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.