KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

60-208. General rules of pleadings. (a) Claim for relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(2) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. Except in contract actions, every pleading demanding relief for money damages in excess of $75,000, without demanding a specific amount of money, must state only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $75,000. Every pleading demanding relief for money damages in an amount of $75,000 or less must specify the amount sought as damages.

(b) Defenses, admissions and denials. (1) In general. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) State in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials; responding to the substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

(3) General and specific denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading, including the jurisdictional grounds, may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying part of an allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking knowledge or information. A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of failing to deny. An allegation, other than one relating to the amount of damages, is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

(c) Affirmative defenses. (1) In general. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including:

(A) Accord and satisfaction;

(B) arbitration and award;

(C) assumption of risk;

(D) contributory negligence or comparative fault;

(E) duress;

(F) estoppel;

(G) failure of consideration;

(H) fraud, illegality;

(I) injury by fellow servant;

(J) laches;

(K) license;

(L) payment;

(M) release;

(N) res judicata;

(O) statute of frauds;

(P) statute of limitations; and

(Q) waiver.

(2) Mistaken designation. If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as though it were correctly designated, and may impose terms for doing so.

(d) Pleading to be concise and direct; alternative statements; inconsistency. (1) In general. Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct. No technical form is required.

(2) Alternative statements of a claim or defense. A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.

(3) Inconsistent claims or defenses. A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.

(e) Construing pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-208; L. 1976, ch. 252, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 203, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 75; L. 2012, ch. 35, § 1; July 1.

Source or prior law:

(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 87; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 92; R.S. 1923, 60-704.

(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 94, 102; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 97, 104; R.S. 1923, 60-710, 60-717.

(d). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 108, 128; L. 1886, ch. 61, § 1; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 110, 129; R.S. 1923, 60-729, 60-748.

(e). (1). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 116; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 118; R.S. 1923, 60-737.

(e). (2). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 89, 94; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 93, 97; L. 1911, ch. 230, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-705 (4 th clause), 60-710 (3 rd clause).

(f). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 115; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 117; R.S. 1923, 60-736.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Amended and supplemental pleadings, see 60-215.

Class actions, see 60-223.

Defenses and objections, see 60-212.

Joinder of claims and remedies, see 60-218.

Pleadings allowed, forms of motions, see 60-207.

Form of pleadings, see 60-210.

Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication, see 60-219.

Affirmative defense of assumption of risk of domestic animal activity, see 60-4001 et seq.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Subsection (a) commented upon prior to legislative enactment, George Templar, 31 J.B.A.K. 166 (1962).

Pleadings discussed, Marlin M. Volz, 11 K.L.R. 203, 208 (1962).

Paragraph (c); 1963-65 survey of law of contracts, Fred N. Six, 14 K.L.R. 209, 219 (1965).

Paragraphs (a) and (f); attached exhibit as pleading, Arnold Grundeman, 8 W.L.J. 102, 103, 108 (1968).

Paragraph (c); Illinois case overturning a common law rationale for contributory negligence, similar to Kansas, for a form of comparative negligence, Robert A. Vohs, 8 W.L.J. 135, 141, 142 (1968).

"Cause of Action Under K.S.A. 60-308 and K.S.A. 60-603 (3)," Robert J. Fowks, 38 J.B.A.K. 291, 292, 294 (1969).

Paragraph (a) cited in note concerning insurer's duty to defend insured in personal injury action under liability policy that excludes from coverage injuries caused by the intentional conduct of insured, 20 K.L.R. 351, 358 (1971).

Cited in comment on no-fault insurance, Tom Haney, 11 W.L.J. 276, 284 (1972).

Subsection (a); consumer protection in Tenth Judicial District, William P. Coates, Jr., 44 J.B.A.K. 67, 104 (1975).

"Medical Malpractice 1976: An Update on Change," Lee J. Dunn, Jr., 45 J.B.A.K. 173, 178 (1976).

"Practicing Law in a Unified Kansas Court System," Linda Diane Henry Elrod, 16 W.L.J. 260, 262 (1977).

"Recent Legislation: The Kansas Approach to Medical Malpractice," Nancy Neal Scherer and Robert P. Scherer, 16 W.L.J. 395, 415 (1977).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Civil Procedure," Jerry G. Elliott, 27 K.L.R. 185, 195 (1979).

"Procedural Pitfalls in Defamation Litigation," Leon B. Graves, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 6, 7 (1979).

"Comparative Fault: Avoiding the Phantom Trap," Dan Wulz, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 8 (1983).

"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 529 (1984).

"Evidence: Can What I Said Be Held Against Me?: Admitting Settlement Agreements and Prior Pleadings in Multiple-Defendant Comparative Negligence Actions[Lytle v. Stearns, 830 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1992)]," Patrick Hughes, 32 W.L.J. 260, 271 (1993).

"Assumption Of Risk: Although A Harsh And Draconian Doctrine, Is Nonetheless, Alive And Well." Robert G. Herndon, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 5, 4 (1993).

"Removal to Federal Court: The Practitioner's Tightrope," Charles W. Hyland, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 22, 27 (1994).

"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 35, 36 (1995).

"Caveat plaintiff: Congress has defederalized private securities litigation," Steven A. Ramirez, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 16 (1998).

"Dissolution of Non-Marital Relationships," Charles F. Harris, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 2, 18 (1998).

"The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: A Rebuttal to 'Cutting the Hedge: Reforming Comparative Fault in Medical Malpractice'," Jerry D. Hawkins, K.D.J. Spring (2007).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-704, 60-705, 60-710, 60-717, 60-729, 60-736, 60-737, 60-748 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Allegations of pleading shall be liberally construed to effect substantial justice. King v. Robbins, 193 K. 70, 75, 392 P.2d 154; Wagoner v. Mail Delivery Service, Inc., 193 K. 470, 471, 394 P.2d 119.

2. Subsection (f) applied; motion to alter or amend judgment. Sharp v. Sharp, 196 K. 38, 42, 409 P.2d 1019.

3. Section provides same thing as former Kansas statute. National Bank of America at Salina v. Calhoun, 253 F.Supp. 346, 347, 350.

4. An attached exhibit is no substitute for a necessary allegation. Hoover Equipment Co. v. Smith, 198 K. 127, 131, 422 P.2d 914.

5. Claim of "sudden emergency" not an avoidance or affirmative defense. Herrington v. Pechin, 198 K. 431, 433, 424 P.2d 624.

6. Trial court's jurisdiction limited to issues raised by pleadings or defined at pretrial conference. Bowen, Administrator v. Lewis, 198 K. 605, 612, 426 P.2d 238.

7. Statute of limitations is affirmative defense and must be pleaded and proved. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 82, 83, 86.

8. Inconsistent alternative defense of adverse possession held proper. Beams v. Werth, 200 K. 532, 533, 548, 438 P.2d 957.

9. Mentioned in overruling trial court's dismissal of action for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted. Thompson v. Phillips Pipe Line Co., 200 K. 669, 672, 438 P.2d 146.

10. In action brought under 12-105, party must plead performance of conditions thereof to be "entitled to relief." James v. City of Wichita, 202 K. 222, 224, 225, 447 P.2d 817.

11. Paragraphs (b) and (c) applied; summary judgment proceeding is not a trial by affidavits; trial required to determine facts. Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 K. 72, 75, 452 P.2d 857.

12. Applied; application of proceeds of collateral to secured debts. State Bank of Downs v. Moss, 203 K. 447, 451, 454 P.2d 554.

13. No allegation of fraud made prior to or during trial; assertion of fraud on appeal untenable. Peoples State Bank v. Merry "A" Drilling, Inc., 204 K. 192, 199, 460 P.2d 521.

14. Petition in action by husband for medical expenses of wife stated claim for relief. Kelley v. Lee, 204 K. 317, 319, 461 P.2d 806.

15. Subsection (c) discussed; the defense of waiver is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 K. 103, 109, 468 P.2d 177.

16. Allegations contained in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted are to be taken as denied or avoided. Tabor v. Lederer, 205 K. 746, 748, 472 P.2d 209.

17. Petition did not show existence of contract entitling plaintiff to relief; motion to dismiss upheld. Weil & Associates v. Urban Renewal Agency, 206 K. 405, 413, 479 P.2d 875.

18. Cited; "claim for relief" defined. Hutchinson Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. v. English, 209. K 127, 129, 495 P.2d 1011.

19. Both accord and satisfaction must be pleaded and established to be effective; judgment for plaintiff upheld. Thompson v. Meyers, 211 K. 26, 32, 505 P.2d 680.

20. Doctrine of laches is an affirmative defense; cannot be pleaded for first time on appeal. Brooker v. Brooker, 214 K. 89, 97, 519 P.2d 612.

21. Subsection (c) applied; failure to plead estoppel as an affirmative defense. Geis Irrigation Co. v. Satanta Feed Yards, Inc., 214 K. 373, 377, 521 P.2d 272.

22. Paragraph (a) applied; petition sufficiently stated cause of action 19-805. Monroe v. Darr, 214 K. 426, 430, 520 P.2d 1197.

23. Applied; fraud alleged in defendants' counter-claim considered a defense. Bessman v. Bessman, 214 K. 510, 514, 520 P.2d 1210.

24. Trial court's finding of estoppel incorrect since not especially pleaded; inapplicable; garnishment in aid of execution. McClintock v. McCall, 214 K. 764, 766, 522 P.2d 343.

25. Referred to; action involving construction of commercial transaction; implied warranty of fitness; disclaimer. Atlas Industries, Inc v. National Cash Register Co., 216 K. 213, 222, 531 P.2d 41.

26. Subsection (a) applied; pleading in original petition sufficient to raise issue on appeal from summary judgment. Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, 218 K. 644, 646, 545 P.2d 371.

27. Subsection (c) mentioned; defense of res judicata must be raised by answer unless the same is clearly indicated by petition. Weaver v. Frazee, 219 K. 42, 52, 547 P.2d 1005.

28. Subsection (e)(2) mentioned; inconsistent cause of actions may be combined in single suit. Weaver v. Frazee, 219 K. 42, 50, 547 P.2d 1005.

29. Construed with 60-218, action based on tort barred by statute; new action based on contract allowed. Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc., 219 K. 408, 412, 413, 548 P.2d 1238.

30. Action characterized as contract action sounded in tort; governmental immunity. Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 220 K. 371, 373, 552 P.2d 885.

31. Failure to raise defense of statute of frauds as required by section; not considered on appeal. Timi v. Prescott State Bank, 220 K. 377, 386, 553 P.2d 315.

32. Applied; answer did not constitute specific denial of material allegations of habeas corpus petition; petition granted. Jolly v. Avery, 220 K. 692, 696, 556 P.2d 449.

33. Applied; default judgments not void because no finding of facts in rendering judgment. Automatic Feeder Co. v. Tobey, 221 K. 17, 21, 558 P.2d 101.

34. Applied; no requirement that pleadings state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action; action alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. Rinsley v. Frydman, 221 K. 297, 301, 559 P.2d 334.

35. Absent pretrial order, facts alleged in petition control scope of lawsuit. Febert v. Upland Mutual Ins. Co., 222 K. 197, 199, 563 P.2d 467.

36. Section cited; 60-206 inapplicable; private contract involved. Barnes v. Gideon, 1 K.A.2d 517, 518, 571 P.2d 42.

37. Section applied; doctrine of estoppel does not prevent one from seeking inconsistent and alternative remedies. Fuqua v. Hanson, 222 K. 653, 657, 567 P.2d 862.

38. Failure to comply with section noted; tort action; liability of municipalities for acts of employees determined; abolition of certain governmental immunity. Gorrell v. City of Parsons, 223 K. 645, 646, 576 P.2d 616.

39. Section cited; summary judgment granted without court specifically addressing one theory raised in pleadings; affirmed. Henderson v. Ripperger, 3 K.A.2d 303, 594 P.2d 251.

40. A cause of action for malicious prosecution of a civil action may be alleged in general language in a petition, so long as the essential elements are set forth. Nelson v. Miller, 227 K. 271, 277, 607 P.2d 438.

41. Where both parties agree that matter was ripe for summary judgment, court did not abuse discretion in denying losing party permission to amend pleadings thereafter. United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner, 4 K.A.2d 662, 664, 665, 610 P.2d 116.

42. Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 grants state court's jurisdiction with federal courts regarding secondary boycotts. Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 101, 228 K. 52, 62, 612 P.2d 150.

43. Petition which alleges a lease and injury to premises caused by negligence of tenant's sublessee states cause of action against tenant. Marcellus v. K.O.V., Inc., 5 K.A.2d 339, 341, 615 P.2d 170.

44. Discussed in opinion adopting a form of comparative implied indemnity between joint tortfeasors. Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 K. 439, 460, 618 P.2d 788.

45. Court adopted form of comparative indemnity between joint tortfeasors. Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 K. 439, 464, 618 P.2d 788.

46. Answer to counterclaim for interpleader set forth claim seeking relief and demand for judgment. Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. of Hays v. City of Yates Center, 229 K. 330, 343, 344, 624 P.2d 971.

47. Failure to raise affirmative defense at trial waives such defense on appeal. U.S.D. No. 490 v. Celotex Corp., 6 K.A.2d 346, 354, 629 P.2d 196 (1981).

48. Petition for claim of relief; elements required. Speer v. City of Dodge City, 6 K.A.2d 798, 801, 636 P.2d 178 (1981).

49. No error in allowing amended petition setting forth different claims which arose out of conduct alleged in original petition. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 8 K.A.2d 303, 307, 657 P.2d 582 (1983).

50. Supreme court rule No. 118(b) sets forth procedure to be used; rule does not preclude use of blackboards or charts if figures used are adduced from evidence. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 K. 555, 564, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).

51. Subsection (c) cited where defendant in comparative negligence suit (60-258a) required to prove by preponderance of evidence joined party's fault. McGraw v. Sanders Co. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 233 K. 766, 772, 773, 667 P.2d 289 (1983).

52. Where petition states cause of action hereunder, amendments based on same theory permitted. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 K. 1028, 1032, 667 P.2d 380 (1983).

53. Amendment to plead affirmative defenses proper where previous default judgment entered in small claims court. Banister v. Carnes, 9 K.A.2d 133, 139, 675 P.2d 906 (1984).

54. Gard's comments cited in case pleading fraud. Price v. Grimes, 234 K. 898, 900, 677 P.2d 969 (1984).

55. Cited in holding assumption of risk defense still absolute bar to recovery by employee. Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 K. 278, 305, 306, 680 P.2d 877 (1984).

56. Emphasis on substance rather than form; eleven general principles established since adoption of code discussed. Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 K. 440, 446, 681 P.2d 630 (1984).

57. Failure to use word "estoppel" in affirmative defense does not defeat plain language giving notice thereof. Turon State Bank v. Bozarth, 235 K. 786, 788, 684 P.2d 419 (1984).

58. Statute of limitations is affirmative defense that must be raised. O'Donnell v. Fletcher, 9 K.A.2d 491, 494, 681 P.2d 1074 (1984).

59. Affirmative defenses of estoppel and res judicata are waived unless affirmatively pled. Oehme v. Oehme, 10 K.A.2d 73, 77, 691 P.2d 1325 (1984).

60. While court improperly raised issue of statute of limitations, error harmless where suit barred for other reasons. Frontier Ditch Co. v. Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 K. 857, 864, 704 P.2d 12 (1985).

61. Pleadings to be given liberal construction; allowance of demand in probate to be liberally construed. In re Estate of Moe, 11 K.A.2d 244, 249, 250, 719 P.2d 7 (1986).

62. Cited in opinion that failure to comply with S.Ct. rule 118(d) renders resulting default judgment voidable and not void. Universal Modular Structures, Inc. v. Forrest, 11 K.A.2d 298, 301, 720 P.2d 1121 (1986).

63. Cited; lack of consideration for mortgage foreclosed following deficiency judgment under 16a-1-101 et seq. (UCCC) examined. Garden Nat'l Bank v. Cada, 11 K.A.2d 562, 565, 729 P.2d 1252 (1986).

64. Cited; court's discretion in granting motion to dismiss malpractice claim where plaintiff shifted claim examined. Boydston v. Kansas Board of Regents, 242 K. 94, 99, 744 P.2d 806 (1987).

65. Threshold requirements of 40-3117 not affirmative defenses within purview of (c). Stang v. Caragianis, 243 K. 249, 252, 757 P.2d 279 (1988).

66. Cited; "one-action" rule in 60-258a examined where separate suits brought for medical malpractice following injuries from industrial accident. Mick v. Mani, 244 K. 81, 95, 766 P.2d 147 (1988).

67. Nolo contendere plea to underlying criminal charges as constituting waiver of statute of limitations defense (21-3106) determined. Lowe v. State, 14 K.A.2d 119, 120, 783 P.2d 1313 (1990).

68. 1-402 as providing adequate substitute remedy for common-law action of professional liability against accountant determined. Gillespie v. Seymour, 14 K.A.2d 563, 573, 796 P.2d 1060 (1990).

69. Defendant's failure to deny payment on debt after sanction struck statute of limitations as affirmative defense constituted admission. Diversified Financial Planners, Inc. v. Maderak, 248 K. 946, 948, 811 P.2d 1236 (1991).

70. Notice pleading rules examined; no requirement to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Producers Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Thomason, 15 K.A.2d 393, 397, 808 P.2d 881 (1991).

71. Statements of claims and defenses in pleadings not admissible as admissions. Lytle v. Stearns, 250 K. 783, 794, 830 P.2d 1197 (1992).

72. Common-law defense of assumption of risk examined; court found defense not altered by adoption of comparative fault. Tuley v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 252 K. 205, 210, 843 P.2d 248 (1992).

73. Res judicata no defense to void court orders; doing so would defeat ends of justice. In re Marriage of Cline, 17 K.A.2d 230, 235, 840 P.2d 1198 (1992).

74. Statute of repose and statute of limitations must be raised as affirmative defenses. Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc., 17 K.A.2d 807, 810, 845 P.2d 65 (1993).

75. On question certified (60-3201 et seq.), manufacturer's post-sale duty to warn of recall and retrofit defective products examined. Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Mfg. Co., 253 K. 741, 748, 861 P.2d 1299 (1993).

76. Where justification defense could have been affirmatively pled, trial court correct in refusing to instruct on the issue. Burrowwood Assocs., Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp., 18 K.A.2d 396, 401, 853 P.2d 1175 (1993).

77. Whether party's inconsistent positions violate doctrine of election of remedies examined. St. Francis Regional Med. Center v. Weiss, 254 K. 728, 749, 869 P.2d 606 (1994).

78. Whether collateral estoppel doctrine is an affirmative defense which must be timely raised in responsive pleading examined. In re Marriage of Vargas, 20 K.A.2d 480, 487, 891 P.2d 462 (1994).

79. Whether defendant's failure to properly plead an affirmative defense based on statute of limitations barred defense examined. King v. Pimentel, 20 K.A.2d 579, 583, 585, 890 P.2d 1217 (1995).

80. General denial of agency relationship in answer constituted denial for directed verdict purposes. Felix v. U.S.D. No. 202, 22 K.A.2d 849, 850, 923 P.2d 1056 (1996).

81. Transferee of right to refund of property taxes paid after debtor discharged in bankruptcy could collect from debtor. Ekan Properties v. Wilhm, 262 K. 495, 504, 939 P.2d 918 (1997).

82. Class action members may aggregate punitive damages in determining controversy amount if members have common, undivided right to punitive damages. Amundson & Assoc. Art v. Nat. Council on Comp. Ins., 977 F.Supp. 1116, 1121 (1997).

83. Insurance contract exclusion of coverage of party injured while using vehicle without permission of owner upheld. Parker v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 25 K.A.2d 329, 331, 962 P.2d 1114 (1998).

84. Failure to raise lack of consideration in a contract defense at trial precludes review on appeal. Johnson v. Johnson, 26 K.A.2d 321, 328, 988 P.2d 244 (1999).

85. In pleading, little specificity required; pleadings to be liberally construed; pleadings adequate. Fowler v. Criticare Home Health Services, Inc., 27 K.A.2d 869, 10 P.3d 8 (2000).

86. Section cited; claim of waiver is considered an affirmative defense; burden of proof discussed. Lyons v. Holder, 38 K.A.2d 131, 139, 163 P.3d 343 (2007).

87. Discussion of case law relating to constructive fraud pleadings. Nelson v. Nelson, 288 K. 570, 205 P.3d 715 (2009).

88. Plaintiff's petition and response sufficient to avoid motion to dismiss. Pioneer Ridge Nursing Facility Operations v. Ermey, 41 K.A.2d 414, 203 P.3d 4 (2009).

89. An affirmative defense that is not pled is effectively waived. Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund v. St. Francis Hospital, 41 K.A.2d 488, 203 P.3d 33 (2009).

90. Pleadings adequately presented an actionable claim for negligence; trial court reversed. Berry v. National Medical Services, Inc., 41 K.A.2d 612, 205 P.3d 745 (2009).

91. Until parties' obligations under their guaranties were satisfied, they had no entitlement for relief. Emprise Bank v. Rumisek, 42 K.A.2d 498, 215 P.3d 621 (2009).


 | Next

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by KSA
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by Bill
  2024 Valid Section Numbers
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department