Bartlett Grain Co. v. Kansas Corp. Commission
292 Kan. 723
Kan.2011Background
- KCC issued a show cause order accusing Bartlett Grain Co., L.P. of aiding and abetting unauthorized motor carriers in interstate commerce.
- Allegations included Bart lett soliciting third-party carriers with safety violations (weights, registrations, licenses, medical exams, etc.).
- Bartlett admitted it is a motor carrier subject to some KCC jurisdiction but contested jurisdiction over hiring third parties.
- KCC initially denied Bartlett’s challenge and ruled it had jurisdiction to proceed with civil penalties.
- Bartlett sought judicial review arguing lack of final agency action and improper jurisdictional determination; the district court and court of appeals were involved.
- The Supreme Court of Kansas dismissed the appeal, holding the agency action at issue was nonfinal and the appeal lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the KCC order on jurisdiction is a final agency action subject to review. | Bartlett contends the order is a final action reviewable under KJRA. | KCC argues the order is nonfinal/preparatory and not subject to immediate review. | The order was nonfinal; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether Bartlett could obtain judicial review of the agency’s jurisdictional determination under KJRA. | Bartlett asserts exhaustion and review rights under KJRA permit review. | KCC contends jurisdictional determination is reviewable only within KJRA constraints. | District court lacked jurisdiction; no statutory basis for review of the interlocutory jurisdictional ruling. |
| Whether this appeal qualifies for interlocutory review under K.S.A. 77-608. | Bartlett exhausted administrative remedies and seeks interlocutory review of nonfinal action. | KCC argues no showing under 77-608b to permit interlocutory review. | No entitlement to interlocutory review; the appeal is dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 287 Kan. 749 (2009) (interlocutory review limitations; exhaustion requirements apply)
- Padron v. Lopez, 289 Kan. 1089 (2009) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
- Shipe v. Public Wholesale Water Supply Dist. No. 25, 289 Kan. 160 (2009) (unlimited review of legal questions; jurisdiction sua sponte review)
- Friedman v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 287 Kan. 754 (2009) (interlocutory review under 77-608 requires harm or adequacy considerations)
- State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289 (2008) (lack of jurisdiction sustains dismissal)