K.S.A. » Chapter 77

K.S.A. § 77-620

Agency record; contents, preparation, transmittal, cost

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

77-620. Agency record; contents, preparation, transmittal, cost. (a) Within 30 days after service of the petition for judicial review, or within further time allowed by the court or by other provision of law, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the agency record for judicial review of the agency action, consisting of any agency documents expressing the agency action, other documents identified by the agency as having been considered by it before its action and used as a basis for its action and any other material required by law as the agency record for the type of agency action at issue, subject to the provisions of this section.

(b) If part of the record has been preserved without a transcript, the agency shall prepare a transcript for inclusion in the record transmitted to the court, except for portions that the parties stipulate to omit in accordance with subsection (c). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the cost of the preparation of the transcript shall be paid by the appellant.

(c) By stipulation of all parties to the judicial review proceedings, the record may be shortened, summarized or organized.

(d) The court may tax the cost of preparing transcripts and copies for the record against a party who unreasonably refuses to stipulate to shorten, summarize or organize the record.

(e) Additions to the record pursuant to K.S.A. 77-619 shall be made as ordered by the court.

(f) The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 20; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Court may relieve appellant of transcript costs, but relief not required for due process. Everett v. Topeka Correctional Facility, 16 Kan. App. 2d 739, 740, 741, 742, 828 P.2d 949 (1992).

2. Whether SRS failed to provide a record from which the district court could have reviewed the secretary's action examined. State v. Walton, 256 Kan. 484, 473, 885 P.2d 1255 (1994).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan “There appears to be no requirement for an agency to file an answer, but failing to do so within 30 days risks a default being taken.”
Redd v. Kansas Truck Center (2010) kan “83 “(d) For purposes of this section, ‘in light of die record as a whole’ means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
Atkins v. Webcon (2018) kan “eview: "For purposes of this section, 'in light of the record as a whole' means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
Catholic Housing Services, Inc. v. State of Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services (1994) kan · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 77-620 provides: “(a) Within 30 days after service of the petition for judicial review, or within further time allowed by the court or by other provision of law, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the agency record for judicial…”
Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing (2020) kan “vides: "For purposes of this section, 'in light of the record as a whole' means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
Olds-Carter v. Lakeshore Farms, Inc. (2011) kanctapp “he language “in light of the record as a whole” is statutorily defined to mean “that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in die record cited by any party that…”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman (2018) ksd “The OSBC did not file the agency record from its administrative proceedings with district court (as is its responsibility under K.S.A. 77-620(a) ) before the district court dismissed the petition for review.”
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC (2014) kanctapp “77-621(d) as meaning “that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before tire court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in tlie record cited by any party that detracts from such finding as well as all of tire relevant…”
Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, L.L.C. (2009) kanctapp · cites it 2× “provides: "For purposes of this section, `in light of the record as a whole' means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
KOTNOUR v. City of Overland Park (2010) kanctapp “ord as a whole,” as follows: *837 “ ‘[I]n light of the record as a whole’ means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
Farley v. Above Par Transportation (2014) kanctapp ““(d) For purposes of this section, ‘in light of the record as a whole’ means that tire adequacy of tire evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that…”
Messner v. Continental Plastic Containers (2013) kanctapp ““ ‘[I]n light of the record as a whole’ means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from such finding as well…”
Show all 47 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 77-620(a) — 8 cases
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan “There appears to be no requirement for an agency to file an answer, but failing to do so within 30 days risks a default being taken.”
Columbian Fin. Corp. v. Bowman (2018) ksd “The OSBC did not file the agency record from its administrative proceedings with district court (as is its responsibility under K.S.A. 77-620(a) ) before the district court dismissed the petition for review.”
In Re Doe (2004) kan
Catholic Housing Services, Inc. v. State of Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services (1994) kan “K.S.A. 77-620 provides: “(a) Within 30 days after service of the petition for judicial review, or within further time allowed by the court or by other provision of law, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the agency record for judicial…”
Doe v. Kansas Department of Human Resources (2004) kan
— K.S.A. § 77-620(b) — 1 case
Everett v. Topeka Correctional Facility (1992) kanctapp
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.