Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-618 (2026)

Review of disputed facts, extent

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-618. Review of disputed facts, extent. Judicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be confined to the agency record for judicial review as supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to this act, except that review of:

(a) Orders of the director of workers' compensation under the workmen's compensation act shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 44-556, and amendments thereto;

(b) orders of the Kansas human rights commission under the Kansas act against discrimination or the Kansas age discrimination in employment act shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 44-1011 and 44-1021, and amendments thereto;

(c) orders of the division of vehicles, other than orders under K.S.A. 8-254, and amendments thereto, which deny, cancel, suspend or revoke a driver's license shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 8-259, and amendments thereto;

(d) orders of the secretary of labor under K.S.A. 72-5413 through 72-5431, and amendments thereto, shall be in accordance with K.S.A. 72-5430a, and amendments thereto;

(e) orders of the state fire marshal under K.S.A. 31-144, and amendments thereto, shall be in accordance with that section; and

(f) orders of the state board of tax appeals under K.S.A. 74-2426, and amendments thereto, shall be in accordance with that section.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 18; L. 1985, ch. 308, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 318, § 9; L. 1991, ch. 148, § 12; L. 2004, ch. 179, § 144; L. 2016, ch. 112, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 4× “” *39 Likewise, K.S.A. 77-618 of the KJRA provides that review is “confined to the agency record for judicial review,” although K.”

Reeves v. Equip. Serv. Indus., Inc., 777 P.2d 765 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 7× “” Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is not completely excluded from coverage under the KJRA, in K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 77-618, concerning review of disputed facts, reference is made to *174 K.”

Monroe v. Gen. Motors Corp., 773 P.2d 683 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 77-618 and K.S.A. 1988 Supp.”

In Re Fleet for Relief From a Tax Grievance, 272 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2012). “For reasons that are not clear in the record, the district court allowed the County to supplement the agency record with tire corrected tax assessments over the owners’ objections but then found the effort to no avail because of the court’s view of the issues. And we feel…”

Brewer v. Schalansky, 102 P.3d 1145 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “Under the KJRA, the court conducting judicial review of the agency action is limited in its review of facts by K.S.A. 77-618, which provides that "[j]udicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be confined to the agency record for judicial review.”

Landau v. City Council of Overland Park, 767 P.2d 1290 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “”) K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 77-618 provides that judicial review of disputed facts shall be confined to the record except where additional evidence is authorized by the Act or where certain agency actions are subject to de novo review.”

Zurawski v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 851 P.2d 1385 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 77-618. One of the listed exceptions to this general rule is review of driver’s license suspensions.”

Angle v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 758 P.2d 226 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “At the time plaintiff filed his petition for review, the KJRA confined judicial review of disputed issues of fact to the agency record, supplemented by additional evidence taken under the KJRA, except de novo review was provided in appeals of (1) workers’ compensation orders;…”

Bd. of Educ. v. NEA-Goodland, 785 P.2d 993 (Kan. 1990). “Pursuant to K.S.A. 77-623, “[djecisions on petitions for judicial review of agency action are reviewable by the appellate courts as in other civil cases.”

Ballard v. Dondlinger & Sons Constr. Co., 355 P.3d 707 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “44-556(a); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 77-618(a). The standard of review varies depending upon the issue raised.”

Helms v. Tollie Freightways, Inc., 889 P.2d 1151 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “” K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 77-618. Finally, K.S.A.”

Stinemetz v. Kansas Health Policy Auth., 252 P.3d 141 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 77-618; Kingsley 288 Kan.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 77-618(a) — 2 cases

Reeves v. Equip. Serv. Indus., Inc., 777 P.2d 765 (Kan. 1989). “” Although the Workers’ Compensation Act is not completely excluded from coverage under the KJRA, in K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 77-618, concerning review of disputed facts, reference is made to *174 K.”

Ballard v. Dondlinger & Sons Constr. Co., 355 P.3d 707 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “44-556(a); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 77-618(a). The standard of review varies depending upon the issue raised.”

— K.S.A. § 77-618(c) — 1 case

Zurawski v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 851 P.2d 1385 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 77-618. One of the listed exceptions to this general rule is review of driver’s license suspensions.”

— K.S.A. § 77-618(f) — 1 case

Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

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.