Romkes v. Univ. of Kan.

17 Citing cases

  1. Kamila v. Univ. of Kan.

    469 P.3d 106 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)

    So even if there appears to be evidence supporting the University's decision, Kamila's claim here requires us to consider whether that evidence " ‘has been so undermined by cross-examination or other evidence that it is insufficient to support the agency's conclusion.’ " Romkes v. University of Kansas , 49 Kan. App. 2d 871, 889, 317 P.3d 124 (2014).B.W.

  2. Goldman v. The University of Kansas

    No. 122 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2020)

    We "exercise the same statutorily limited review of the agency action as does the trial court, i.e., as though the appeal had been made directly to the appellate court." Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan.App.2d 871, 880, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). The KJRA is the exclusive means of judicial review of an agency's action.

  3. Pittman v. Bliss

    362 P.3d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    It cannot serve as a substitute for the record itself. Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02(b) (2015 Kan. Ct. Rule Annot. 41); see Edwards v. Anderson Engineering, Inc., 284 Kan. 892, 895, 166 P.3d 1047 (2007); Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan.App.2d 871, 886, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). “The burden is on the party making a claim to designate facts in the record to support that claim; without such a record, the claim of error fails.

  4. Moore v. Venture Corp.

    51 Kan. App. 2d 132 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing effect of 2011 amendments to Act on some prior caselaw

    But we must determine, after reviewing all the evidence, whether the evidence supporting the Board's decision has been so undermined by cross-examination or other evidence that it is insufficient to support its decision. Ribeau v. Candies, 50 Kan.App. 2d 824, Syl. ¶ 6, 333 P.3d 921 (2014) ; Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan.App.2d 871, Syl. ¶ 7, 317 P.3d 124 (2014) ; In re Protests of Oakhill Land Co., 46 Kan.App.2d 1105, 1114, 269 P.3d 876 (2012).We note too that the legislature amended the Workers Compensation Act effective May 15, 2011.

  5. Harsay v. Univ. of Kan.

    430 P.3d 30 (Kan. 2018)   Cited 16 times
    Holding litigant abandoned issues not raised in cross-petition for review, opposition to other party's petition for review, or later motion to file a conditional cross-petition for review

    The choices involved in the decision to recommend or deny tenure are inherently subjective, involve a series of discretionary decisions made by various groups of people, and are based in part on the business judgment of the University. See Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas , 49 Kan.App. 2d 871, 889-91, 317 P.3d 124 (2014) (discussing cases in the context of employment discrimination and tenure). In this case, the Court of Appeals was rightfully concerned with the lack of detail informing Harsay of the chancellor's final call.

  6. In res A.T.

    125,654 (Kan. Ct. App. May. 26, 2023)

    The report was admitted as an exhibit during the termination hearing but is not part of the record on appeal, so we cannot review the entire document. For that reason, we decline to consider the edited portions of the report and, therefore, turn aside Mother's argument. See Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan.App.2d 871, 886, 317 P.3d 124 (2014) (appellate court cannot rely on documents accompanying brief not included in formal record on appeal); Still Corp., Inc. v. Still, No. 116,910, 2017 WL 5507708, at *3 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion). The party appealing an adverse judgment is obligated to furnish a sufficient record to establish error.

  7. Gilliam v. Kan. State Fair Bd.

    62 Kan. App. 2d 236 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    In those cases, the regulations have the force and effect of law, and we give no deference to the agency's (or district court's) interpretation. See K.S.A. 77-425 ; Romkes v. University of Kansas , 49 Kan. App. 2d 871, 880, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). The 2016 State Fair rules are a different animal, as they are not regulations that have been published in the Kansas Register and do not appear to have been adopted through formal rulemaking.

  8. SWKI-Seward W. Cent. v. Kan. Corp. Comm'n

    No. 123 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2022)

    K.S.A. 66-118c. We exercise the same statutorily limited review of agency action as the district court, as though the appeal was made directly to us. Romkes v. University of Kansas, 49 Kan.App.2d 871, 880, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). The KJRA is the exclusive means of judicial review of an agency's action.

  9. Moses v. Weaver Ventures, LLC

    502 P.3d 1076 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022)

    Even if there is evidence supporting the Board's decision, we must consider whether the supporting evidence has been so undermined by cross-examination or other evidence to render it insufficient to support the Board's decision. Romkes v. University of Kansas , 49 Kan. App. 2d 871, 889, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). As Moses points out, the Board disagreed with the ALJ's credibility determinations and ruled Moses failed to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with Sears and failed to provide timely notice of his injury.

  10. O'Neal v. City of Hutchinson

    499 P.3d 511 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021)

    Even with evidence supporting the Board's decision, we "must consider ‘whether the evidence supporting the [Board's] decision has been so undermined by cross-examination or other evidence that it is insufficient to support’ " the Board's decision. Romkes v. Univ. of Kansas , 49 Kan. App. 2d 871, 889, 317 P.3d 124 (2014). Third, the City alleges the Board's action is "otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious."