Opinion ID: 2344070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Preclusion applies to agency determinations made in a judicial capacity

Text: The County argues the preclusion doctrines should not apply because ordinarily not all administrative agency decisions are subject to them, such as actions taken in an administrative or legislative capacity, citing Warburton v. Warkentin, 185 Kan. 468, 345 P.2d 992 (1959) (The doctrine of res judicata does not ordinarily apply to decisions of administrative tribunals.). The County contends that the doctrine of res judicata is not an iron legal mandate that must be applied regardless of the underlying circumstances. But this argument attempts to mask the nature of the proceedings at issue with this aircraft, and in doing so underscores the fatal flaw in the County's position. This court has held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to administrative determinations `when the first administrative proceeding provides the procedural protections similar to court proceedings when an agency is acting in a judicial capacity.' Winston, 274 Kan. at 413, 49 P.3d 1274 (citing Parker v. Kansas Neurological Institute, 13 Kan.App.2d 685, 686, 778 P.2d 390, rev. denied 245 Kan. 785 [1989]). And there is no doubt in this case that BOTA was acting in a judicial capacity when it approved the tax exemptions for these aircraft. See Brown v. U.S.D. No. 333, 261 Kan. 134, 155-56, 928 P.2d 57 (1996) (judicial function requires notice and a hearing, involves the application of legal criteria to specific facts, or carries with it any of the normal trappings of a judicial inquiry, such as the presentation of evidence or the presence of counsel). The fact that administrative decisions made in a legislative or administrative capacity are not subject to res judicata principles does not mean the decision in this case escapes the doctrine's function here. Application depends upon the nature of the proceedings, which in this instance involves BOTA acting in a judicial capacity, and the existence of the other requisite elements of the doctrine in issue. The County simply offers no support for its claim that the preclusion doctrines should not apply in this case. We find this argument to be without merit.