60-901. Nature of injunction. Injunction is an order to do or refrain from doing a particular act. It may be the final judgment in an action, and it may also be allowed as a provisional remedy.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-901; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 237; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 249; R.S. 1923, 60-1101.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The Kansas Open Meeting Act: Sunshine on the Sunflower State?" Deanell R. Tacha, 25 K.L.R. 169,202 (1977).
"Judicial Review of Administrative Action—Kansas Perspectives," David L. Ryan, 19 W.L.J. 423, 426 (1980).
"1979 Family Law Legislation," H. Reed Walker, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 20, 22 (1980).
"Reform in Kansas Domestic Violence Legislation," David J. Gottlieb and L. Eric Johnson, 31 K.L.R. 527, 560 (1983).
"Litigating Noncompetition Agreements in Kansas," Steven D. Ruse, 55 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 28, 30 (1986).
"Litigating Noncompete Agreements: A Strategic Guide for Kansas Practitioners," Steven D. Ruse and Kelly D. Stohs, K.D.J. Winter (2008).
"Getting Caught in the Web of the Internet-What Should a Corporation Do if it is the Victim of Internet," Rrachelle R. Breckenridge, K.D.J. Spring (2011).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Handicapped accessibility; mandatory injunctive relief for violations of standards; civil penalty for injunction violations. 91-7.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 30-1101.
1. Provisions and mandatory requirements discussed and applied. Ostler v. Nickel, 196 Kan. 477, 413 P.2d 303.
2. Promotion allegedly violative of trading stamp act discontinued but issue of adequate public concern to justify consideration of case. State ex rel. Stephan v. Pepsi-Cola Gen'l Bottlers, Inc., 232 Kan. 843, 844, 659 P.2d 213 (1983).
3. Mandamus not appropriate to redress past violations of KOMA; injunctive relief more closely tailored for redress. Stevens v. City of Hutchinson, 11 Kan. App. 2d 290, 726 P.2d 279 (1986).
4. Applicability of K.S.A. 77-201 Fourth to statutory authority governing Kansas parole board's power to grant or deny parole determined. Haney v. Hamilton, 13 Kan. App. 2d 269, 768 P.2d 832 (1989).
5. Rights of pipeline easement grantee over one constructing buildings on easement examined. Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Wietharn, 246 Kan. 238, 242, 787 P.2d 716 (1990).
6. Proof required by petitioner to obtain injunctive relief from prospective injury examined. Sampel v. Balberni, 20 Kan. App. 2d 527, 528, 889 P.2d 804 (1995).
7. Imposition of permanent injunction without giving enjoined party right to be heard reversed. Kansas East Conf. of the United Methodist Church v. Bethany Med. Ctr., 266 Kan. 366, 381, 969 P.2d 859 (1998).
8. Nontribal members are not entitled to seek injunction to restrain state from collecting fuel tax. Kaul v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 266 Kan. 464, 474, 970 P.2d 60 (1998).
9. Appellants presented no evidence to support claim of irreparable harm to justify issuance of an injunction. Board of Reno County Comm'rs v. Asset Mgmt. & Marketing L.L.C., 28 Kan. App. 2d 501, 18 P.3d 286 (2001).
|
|