Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150 (2026)

Conduct of judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Except as provided in KRS 452.005, review of a final order shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, unless there is fraud or misconduct involving a party engaged in administration of this chapter. The court, upon request, may hear oral argument and receive written briefs. Challenges to the constitutionality of a final order shall be reviewed in accordance with KRS 452.005. (2) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the final order or it may reverse the final order, in whole or in part, and remand the case for further proceedings if it finds the agency's final order is: (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the hearing; (f) Prejudiced by a failure of the person conducting a proceeding to be disqualified pursuant to KRS 13B.040(2); or (g) Deficient as otherwise provided by law. (3) The court shall apply de novo review of the agency's final order on questions of law. An agency's interpretation of a statute or administrative regulation shall not be entitled to deference from a reviewing court. Effective: June 27, 2025 History: Amended 2025 Ky. Acts ch. 112, sec. 3, effective June 27, 2025. -- Amended 2021 Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 3, effective February 2, 2021. -- Created 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 382, sec. 15, effective July 15, 1996.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 92 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013). · cites it 7× “The final order of the Tribunal is then subject to judicial review in the circuit court under procedures established by KRS 13B.150. As we noted previously, the statute requires deference to the Tribunal only “as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 4× “The standard of review appears in KRS 13B.150(2): The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Kentucky Bd. of Med. Licensure v. Ryan, 151 S.W.3d 778 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 6× “593 and KRS 13B.150, do not support the action taken by the circuit judge.”

Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “" According to KRS 13B.150(2), we may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Maggard v. Commonwealth, Bd. of Examiners of Psychology, 282 S.W.3d 301 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 7× “We reverse the courts’ ruling that, under KRS 13B.150(1), Appellant was not entitled to conduct discovery on his allegations of fraud and misconduct in the prosecution of the administrative action against him.”

500 Assocs., Inc. v. Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 204 S.W.3d 121 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to KRS 13B.150(1), ''[r]eview of a final order shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record[.”

Commonwealth v. Samaritan All., LLC, 439 S.W.3d 757 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “We further find that KRS 13B.150 allows Samaritan to present evidence of extrinsic fraud as part of its statutory appeal from the Cabinet’s Final Order, but Samaritan cannot assert an independent claim for damages arising out of that alleged fraud.”

W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 388 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 2× “140 and KRS 13B.150. The administrative proceedings, however, are now in abeyance pending conclusion of this proceeding.”

Andrew Cooperrider v. Maggie Woods, 127 F.4th 1019 (6th Cir. 2025). “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13B.150. Thus, claims of bias, conflict of interest, and prejudice can’t be examined by a reviewing court unless they’re in the record made before the board.”

Wilson v. Askew, 568 S.W.3d 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “KRS 13B.150 states that a court reviewing a final administrative order may affirm, reverse in whole or part "and remand the case for further proceedings if it finds the agency's final order is: "(a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; .”

Dipendra Tiwari v. Eric Friedlander, 26 F.4th 355 (6th Cir. 2022). “Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150. But they did not file such a challenge.”

Freeman v. St. Andrew Orthodox Church, Inc., 294 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2009). · cites it 3× “Appeals to the circuit court from the KBTA are governed by KRS 131.370. The court is not to substitute its own judgment as to questions of fact, but may either affirm the final order of the KBTA, or reverse it, in whole or in part.”

Show all 92 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(1) — 11 cases

Maggard v. Commonwealth, Bd. of Examiners of Psychology, 282 S.W.3d 301 (Ky. 2008). “We reverse the courts’ ruling that, under KRS 13B.150(1), Appellant was not entitled to conduct discovery on his allegations of fraud and misconduct in the prosecution of the administrative action against him.”

500 Assocs., Inc. v. Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 204 S.W.3d 121 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). “Pursuant to KRS 13B.150(1), ''[r]eview of a final order shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record[.”

Fankhauser v. Cobb, 163 S.W.3d 389 (Ky. 2005).

Louisville Edible Oil Prods., Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky, 957 S.W.2d 272 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).

Commonwealth v. Samaritan All., LLC, 439 S.W.3d 757 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). “We further find that KRS 13B.150 allows Samaritan to present evidence of extrinsic fraud as part of its statutory appeal from the Cabinet’s Final Order, but Samaritan cannot assert an independent claim for damages arising out of that alleged fraud.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(1)(a) — 1 case

Perry Puckett v. Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs. (Ky. 2021).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2) — 53 cases

Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 983 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1998). “The standard of review appears in KRS 13B.150(2): The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 294 S.W.3d 10 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008). “" According to KRS 13B.150(2), we may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879 (Ky. 2013). “The final order of the Tribunal is then subject to judicial review in the circuit court under procedures established by KRS 13B.150. As we noted previously, the statute requires deference to the Tribunal only “as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

louisville/jefferson v. Tdc Grp., 283 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. 2009).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2)(a) — 9 cases

Commonwealth, Labor Cabinet v. Hasken, 265 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).

Freeman v. St. Andrew Orthodox Church, Inc., 294 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2009). “Appeals to the circuit court from the KBTA are governed by KRS 131.370. The court is not to substitute its own judgment as to questions of fact, but may either affirm the final order of the KBTA, or reverse it, in whole or in part.”

Est. of McVey v. Dep't of Revenue, 480 S.W.3d 233 (Ky. 2015).

West v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm'n (E.D. Ky. 2019).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2)(b) — 2 cases

West v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm'n (E.D. Ky. 2019).

Miracle v. Duncan, 568 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2)(c) — 14 cases

W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 388 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2012). “140 and KRS 13B.150. The administrative proceedings, however, are now in abeyance pending conclusion of this proceeding.”

Z.H. v. Ky. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 359 F. Supp. 3d 514 (W.D. Ky. 2019).

Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. Nancy Gauze (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).

Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. Rosa Stephens (Ky. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2)(d) — 7 cases

Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. Nancy Gauze (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).

Edward Elder v. Kentucky Ret. Sys. (Ky. 2021).

Century Aluminum of Kentucky, Gp v. Dep't of Revenue, Fin. & Admin. Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2022).

West v. Kentucky Horse Racing Comm'n (E.D. Ky. 2019).

Kentucky Pub. Pensions Auth. on Behalf of the Jt. Disability Appeals Comm. of Kentucky Ret. Sys. an (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(2)(g) — 1 case

Century Aluminum of Kentucky, Gp v. Dep't of Revenue, Fin. & Admin. Cabinet Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2022).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13B.150(3) — 2 cases

Kentucky Pub. Pensions Auth. on Behalf of the Jt. Disability Appeals Comm. of Kentucky Ret. Sys. an (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. Floyd Arnold, Montgomery Cnty. Prop. Valuation Adm'r (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).

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.