Court Opinion

ID: 9615513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:37:49.480292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:48.376650
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that the Board had no jurisdiction to reconsider or change its order or judgment after a valid appeal had been perfected to the district court.
The majority cites the general law governing an appeal from an order of an administrative tribunal. The district court may not substitute its judgment for that of an administrative tribunal, and is restricted to considering, as a matter of law, whether the tribunal acted fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously; whether the administrative order is substantially supported by evidence; and whether the tribunal’s action was within the scope of its authority.
*27We, in reviewing a district court’s judgment, determine whether a district court observed the requirements and restrictions placed upon it. We then make the same review of the administrative tribunal’s action as does the district court. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Kan. 447, 436 P.2d 828 (1968).
Here, the district court did not review the record to make an independent review of the evidence presented to the agency as required by statute' and case law. It simply relied on the improper stipulation of the Board and Shawnee. There was no review by the district court to appeal.
Prior to this we have remanded cases back to the lower court with instructions to apply the correct standard of review. The majority now states that even though the district court has not reviewed the record, we have the record so let us act as the district court and determine the issue; a remand to the district court will only cause unnecessary delay, expense to the litigants and a drain of judicial resources. Such is true in every case we have remanded back to the district court after a trial or hearing on a record.
We are blazing a new trail. Under the majority’s new appellate procedure, when we review as a district court, there is no appeal of our review. The review and appeal as provided by statute or case law is eliminated. We have muddied a clear stream.
McFarland, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.