Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 77-621 (2026)

Scope of review

✓ current as of May 2026

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

77-621. Scope of review. (a) Except to the extent that this act or another statute provides otherwise:

(1) The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity; and

(2) the validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of judicial review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken.

(b) The court shall make a separate and distinct ruling on each material issue on which the court's decision is based.

(1) The agency action, or the statute or rule and regulation on which the agency action is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied;

(2) the agency has acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred by any provision of law;

(3) the agency has not decided an issue requiring resolution;

(4) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;

(5) the agency has engaged in an unlawful procedure or has failed to follow prescribed procedure;

(6) the persons taking the agency action were improperly constituted as a decision-making body or subject to disqualification;

(7) the agency action is based on a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported to the appropriate standard of proof by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this act; or

(8) the agency action is otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

(d) 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 detracts from such finding as well as all of the relevant evidence in the record, compiled pursuant to K.S.A. 77-620, and amendments thereto, cited by any party that supports such finding, including any determinations of veracity by the presiding officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witness and the agency's explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of fact. In reviewing the evidence in light of the record as a whole, the court shall not reweigh the evidence or engage in de novo review.

(e) In making the foregoing determinations, due account shall be taken by the court of the rule of harmless error.

History: L. 1984, ch. 338, § 21; L. 2009, ch. 109, § 28; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 588 cases (105 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · 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 31× “In addressing the standard of review for this issue, Sierra Club indicates it relies on subsections (c)(4) through (c)(8) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 77-621. We will separately consider how Sierra Club’s arguments relate to these provisions.”

Redd v. Kansas Truck Ctr., 239 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 19× “Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp.”

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 13× “K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1) (“The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”

In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 18× “Thus, whatever value was added for the SWD flow lines must be subtracted out and River Rock is entitled to relief under K.S.A. 77-621[c][7] and/or [8] by reducing the total equipment value.”

Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 13× “" Finally, we note that Harsay also attempted in the district court and before the Court of Appeals to challenge the University's decision as "otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 77-621(c)(8). She also added an argument before the Court of…”

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 75 P.3d 226 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 11× “Anthem and BCBSKS then filed petitions for judicial review with the Shawnee County District Court based *235 on five different reasons under K.S.A. 77-621 of the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA).”

In Re Tax Application of Lietz Constr. Co., 47 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 10× “In an appeal from an order of BOTA, K.S.A. 77-621 controls an appellate court’s scope of review.”

Connelly v. Kansas High. Patrol, 26 P.3d 1246 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 10× “75-2929h and K.S.A. 77-621 is so limited that it somehow makes the administrative proceedings inadequate.”

Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 154 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 7× “” K.S.A. 77-621(c). An appellate court reviews the Board’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence “when viewed in light of the record as a whole.”

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Wagner, 372 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 9× “See K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 77-621(a)(1). K.S.A. 2012 Supp.”

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC, 333 P.3d 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 17× “79-1460(a)(2)? The County initially provided identical appraisal values for the Property for tax years 2010 and 2011.”

Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing, 471 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 8× “3d 459 (2019) ("'Essentially, the test [for unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious agency action] under K.S.A. 77-621[c][8] determines the reasonableness of the agency's exercise of discretion in reaching its decision based upon the agency's factual findings and the applicable…”

Show all 588 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 77-621(7) — 1 case

Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. State Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 808 P.2d 1348 (Kan. 1991).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(a) — 27 cases

Est. of Graber v. Dillon Companies, 439 P.3d 291 (Kan. 2019).

In Re the Appeal of the City of Wichita, 86 P.3d 513 (Kan. 2004).

In Re Tax Appeal of Collingwood Grain, Inc., 891 P.2d 422 (Kan. 1995).

In Re the Appeal of Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc., 920 P.2d 947 (Kan. 1996).

In Re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita, 59 P.3d 336 (Kan. 2002).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(a)(1) — 151 cases

Jones v. Kansas State Univ., 106 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2005).

Connelly v. Kansas High. Patrol, 26 P.3d 1246 (Kan. 2001). “75-2929h and K.S.A. 77-621 is so limited that it somehow makes the administrative proceedings inadequate.”

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). “K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1) (“The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”

In re Equalization of Target Corp., 410 P.3d 939 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).

In Re Tax Application of Lietz Constr. Co., 47 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2002). “In an appeal from an order of BOTA, K.S.A. 77-621 controls an appellate court’s scope of review.”

— K.S.A. § 77-621(a)(2) — 11 cases

Redd v. Kansas Truck Ctr., 239 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2010). “Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp.”

Mitchell v. Petsmart, Inc., 239 P.3d 51 (Kan. 2010).

Vill. Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Auth., 291 P.3d 1056 (Kan. 2013).

Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 256 P.3d 828 (Kan. 2011).

Clawson v. State, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(a)(7) — 5 cases

Neal v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 81 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2003).

In Re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita, 59 P.3d 336 (Kan. 2002).

Poff v. IBP, Inc., 106 P.3d 1152 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

L.E.H. Ex Rel. D.H. v. State Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 241 P.3d 167 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).

Hall v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 189 P.3d 508 (Kan. 2008).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(a)(l) — 67 cases

Saline Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Jensen, 88 P.3d 242 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).

Foster v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 130 P.3d 560 (Kan. 2006).

Kansas Dep't of Revenue v. Powell, 232 P.3d 856 (Kan. 2010).

Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013). “In addressing the standard of review for this issue, Sierra Club indicates it relies on subsections (c)(4) through (c)(8) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 77-621. We will separately consider how Sierra Club’s arguments relate to these provisions.”

In Re Fleet for Relief From a Tax Grievance, 272 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2012).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(b) — 4 cases

Sw. Kansas Royalty Owners Ass'n v. State Corp. Comm'n, 769 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1989).

Goldman v. The Univ. of Kansas (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

Robinson v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Env't (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).

Buehne v. Kansas Dept. for Child. & Families (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(b)(7) — 1 case

Jones v. Kansas State Univ., 81 P.3d 1243 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c) — 208 cases

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). “K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1) (“The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”

Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 335 P.3d 1178 (Kan. 2014).

Frick Farm Props., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Agric., 216 P.3d 170 (Kan. 2009).

Berry v. Nat'l Med. Servs., Inc., 205 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(1) — 29 cases

In Re the Appeals of CIG Field Servs. Co., 112 P.3d 138 (Kan. 2005).

Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002).

Vill. Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Auth., 291 P.3d 1056 (Kan. 2013).

In Re Doe, 90 P.3d 940 (Kan. 2004).

In Re the Appeal of Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc., 920 P.2d 947 (Kan. 1996).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(1)(7)(8) — 1 case

Trees Oil Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 105 P.3d 1269 (Kan. 2005).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(2) — 13 cases

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). “K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1) (“The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”

Fort Hays State Univ. v. Fort Hays State Univ. Chapter, 228 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2010).

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 75 P.3d 226 (Kan. 2003). “Anthem and BCBSKS then filed petitions for judicial review with the Shawnee County District Court based *235 on five different reasons under K.S.A. 77-621 of the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA).”

Jones v. State, 109 P.3d 1166 (Kan. 2005).

In Re Tax Appeal of Alex R. Masson, Inc., 909 P.2d 673 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(3) — 18 cases

In Re Tax Application of Lietz Constr. Co., 47 P.3d 1275 (Kan. 2002). “In an appeal from an order of BOTA, K.S.A. 77-621 controls an appellate court’s scope of review.”

Vill. Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Auth., 291 P.3d 1056 (Kan. 2013).

Connelly v. Kansas High. Patrol, 26 P.3d 1246 (Kan. 2001). “75-2929h and K.S.A. 77-621 is so limited that it somehow makes the administrative proceedings inadequate.”

In re the Appeal of Boeing Co., 930 P.2d 1366 (Kan. 1997).

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC, 333 P.3d 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “79-1460(a)(2)? The County initially provided identical appraisal values for the Property for tax years 2010 and 2011.”

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(4) — 234 cases

Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 154 P.3d 494 (Kan. 2007). “” K.S.A. 77-621(c). An appellate court reviews the Board’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence “when viewed in light of the record as a whole.”

In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021). “Thus, whatever value was added for the SWD flow lines must be subtracted out and River Rock is entitled to relief under K.S.A. 77-621[c][7] and/or [8] by reducing the total equipment value.”

Foos v. Terminix & Zurich Am. Ins., 89 P.3d 546 (Kan. 2004).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(5) — 32 cases

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Prieb Props., L.L.C., 275 P.3d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002).

Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S. Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 908 P.2d 1276 (Kan. 1995).

Saline Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Jensen, 88 P.3d 242 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(6) — 4 cases

Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 885 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1994).

Joritz v. Univ. of Kansas (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

Goldman v. The Univ. of Kansas (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(7) — 173 cases

Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 294 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013). “K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1) (“The burden of proving the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”

Redd v. Kansas Truck Ctr., 239 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2010). “Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp.”

Harsay v. Univ. of Kansas, 430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018). “" Finally, we note that Harsay also attempted in the district court and before the Court of Appeals to challenge the University's decision as "otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 77-621(c)(8). She also added an argument before the Court of…”

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(8) — 96 cases

In Re the Protests of Oakhill Land Co., 269 P.3d 876 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 49 P.3d 1274 (Kan. 2002).

Trees Oil Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 105 P.3d 1269 (Kan. 2005).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(c)(l) — 12 cases

In Re Tax Exemption Application of Cent. Illinois Pub. Servs. Co., 78 P.3d 419 (Kan. 2003).

In re the Appeal of Weisgerber, 169 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2007).

Vill. Villa v. Kansas Health Policy Auth., 291 P.3d 1056 (Kan. 2013).

In re the Appeals of Various Applicants from a Decision of the Div. of Prop. Valuation, 313 P.3d 789 (Kan. 2013).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(d) — 123 cases

Redd v. Kansas Truck Ctr., 239 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2010). “Both K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp.”

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Wagner, 372 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2016). “See K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 77-621(a)(1). K.S.A. 2012 Supp.”

Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 335 P.3d 1178 (Kan. 2014).

Buchanan v. JM Staffing, LLC, 379 P.3d 428 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(d)(7) — 1 case

Prince v. Kansas Dept. of Labor (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(e) — 21 cases

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Prieb Props., L.L.C., 275 P.3d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Woessner v. Labor Max Staffing, 471 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2020). “3d 459 (2019) ("'Essentially, the test [for unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious agency action] under K.S.A. 77-621[c][8] determines the reasonableness of the agency's exercise of discretion in reaching its decision based upon the agency's factual findings and the applicable…”

Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas, 317 P.3d 124 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

In Re the Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, L.L.C., 362 P.3d 1109 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

— K.S.A. § 77-621(e)(4) — 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.