77-619. Additional evidence. (a) The court may receive evidence, in addition to that contained in the agency record for judicial review, only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding:
(1) Improper constitution as a decision-making body; or improper motive or grounds for disqualification, of those taking the agency action; or
(2) unlawfulness of procedure or of decision-making process.
(b) The court may remand a matter to the agency, before final disposition of a petition for judicial review, with directions that the agency conduct fact-finding and other proceedings the court considers necessary and that the agency take such further action on the basis thereof as the court directs, if:
(1) The agency was required to base its action exclusively on a record of a type reasonably suitable for judicial review, but the agency failed to prepare or preserve an adequate record;
(2) the court finds that (A) new evidence has become available that relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken, that one or more of the parties did not know and was under no duty to discover, or did not know and was under a duty to discover but could not reasonably have discovered until after the agency action, and (B) the interests of justice would be served by remand to the agency;
(3) the agency improperly excluded or omitted evidence from the record; or
(4) a relevant provision of law changed after the agency action and the court determines that the new provision may control the outcome.
History: L. 1984, ch. 338, ยง 19; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 30, 31 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; KCC order amending basic proration order for Kansas Hugoton gas field to allow infill drilling examined. Southwest Kan. Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 244Kan. App. 2d157, 168, 769 P.2d 1 (1989).
2. Appropriate standards of review as excluding city and county rezoning decisions examined. Landau v. City Council of Overland Park, 244Kan. App. 2d257, 273, 767 P.2d 1290 (1989).
3. Civil service board ruling as not res judicata against tort action brought under act against discrimination (K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.) examined. Parker v. Kansas Neurological Institute, 13 Kan. App. 2d 685, 687, 778 P.2d 390 (1989).
4. Act for judicial review inapplicable to appeal from unified school district board acting as quasi-judicial body. O'Hair v. U.S.D. No. 300, 15 Kan. App. 2d 52, 56, 805 P.2d 40 (1991).
5. Post-termination judicial review, although not used, was possible under KAJR for presenting evidence of unlawfulness. Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 526 (1998).
6. Appeals under K.S.A. 58-3509 are by trial de novo; Kansas act for judicial review does not apply. Frick v. City of Salina, 289Kan. App. 2d1, 208 P.3d 739 (2009).
7. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence not found in the agency record. Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan. App. 2d 871, 317 P.3d 124 (2014).
|