Home >> Statutes >> Back

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

60-2106. Appellate court decisions; school finance issues, limitations. (a) Opinions. It shall be the duty of the judges of an appellate court to prepare and file with the papers in each case, the opinion of the court upon the questions of law arising in the case, within 60 days after the decision of the same; and the opinion so filed shall be treated as a part of the record in the case, but no costs shall be charged therefor, except for copies thereof ordered by a party, and no mandate shall be sent to the court below, until the opinion provided for by this section has been filed.

A memorandum opinion may be prepared in any case where no new question of law is decided or which is otherwise considered as having no value as a precedent. Such a memorandum opinion need not contain a syllabus or statement of facts. In all other cases a formal opinion shall be prepared.

(b) Syllabus. Each formal opinion shall contain a syllabus of the points of law decided, which shall be confined to those questions necessarily arising from the facts in the case.

(c) Judgment and mandate. The supreme court may by rule provide for post decision motions for rehearing or other relief. When under such rule a decision of an appellate court becomes final, such court shall promptly cause to be transmitted to the clerk of the district court its mandate containing such directions as are appropriate under the decision. A copy of the opinion of the court shall accompany and be a part of the mandate. The clerk of the district court shall make a notation thereof on the appearance docket. Such mandate and opinion, without further order of the judge, shall thereupon be a part of the judgment of the court if it is determinative of the action, or shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court.

(d) As a part of a remedy, preliminary decision or final decision in which a statute or legislative enactment of this state has been held unconstitutional as a violation of article 6 of the Kansas constitution, the appellate court or any master or other person or persons appointed by the appellate court to hear or determine a cause or controversy or to make or enforce any order or remedy ordered by a court pursuant to K.S.A. 60-253, and amendments thereto, or any other provision of law, shall not have the authority to order a school district or any attendance center within a school district to be closed or enjoin the use of all statutes related to the distribution of funds for public education.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2106; amended by Supreme Court order dated January 5, 1972; L. 1975, ch. 178, § 30; L. 2005, ch. 2, § 23 (Special Session); July 28.

Source or prior law:

(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 560; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 592; R.S. 1923, 60-3328.

(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 561; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 593; R.S. 1923, 60-3329.

(c). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 559; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 594; R.S. 1923, 60-3330.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Syllabus and written opinions of cases in supreme court and court of appeals, see 20-111, 20-112.

District courts required to execute judgments of supreme court, see 20-108.

Waiver of right to appeal in divorce cases, see 60-1610.

School finance litigation, see 72-64b01 et seq.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Rules of Appellate Procedure Eight Years Later," John F. Fontron, 41 J.B.A.K. 205, 209, 235 (1972).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Civil Procedure," Jerry G. Elliott, 27 K.L.R. 185, 191 (1979).

"In the Best Interests of the Divided Family: An Analysis of the 1982 Amendments to the Kansas Divorce Code," Nancy G. Maxwell, 22 W.L.J. 177, 233 (1983).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Family Law," Nancy G. Maxwell, 32 K.L.R. 543, 574 (1984).

"Family Law: A New Requirement for Paternity Determinations in Kansas—Determining if Blood Tests are in the Best Interest of the Child [In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989)]," Kristin Blomquist-Shinn, 30 W.L.J. 112, 120 (1990).

"Lurching Toward the Light: Alternative Means and Multiple Acts Law in Kansas," Carol A. Beier, 44 W.L.J. 275 (2005).


Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3328 to 60-3330 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Subsection (c) complied with; workmen's compensation case. Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 196 K. 244, 245, 409 P.2d 1001.

2. Filing of mandate in district court from which appeal taken controlling in conduct of further proceedings. State v. Bloomer, 197 K. 668, 674, 421 P.2d 58.

3. Judgment affirmed by equally divided court. Fink v. City of Topeka, 208 K. 805, 494 P.2d 411.

4. Sufficiency of expert's qualifications in investigation of accident; no prejudicial error in admission of testimony. Hagood v. Hall, 211 K. 46, 53, 505 P.2d 736.

5. Time for filing appeal runs from the time judgment entered; bifurcated ruling; latest order fixes date. McCain v. McCain, 219 K. 780, 782, 549 P.2d 896.

6. Mandate from appellate court does not divest district court of power to consider motion for relief from judgment. Jones v. Smith, 5 K.A.2d 352, 353, 354, 616 P.2d 300.

7. Supreme court may, by rule, provide for post-decision motions and determine when appellate decision is final; rehearing suspends effect of original decision. Board of Greenwood County Comm'rs v. Nadel, 228 K. 469, 474, 618 P.2d 778.

8. Wording of judgment corrected to reflect subsection (c) requirement. Powell v. Powell, 231 K. 456, 464, 648 P.2d 218 (1982).

9. Where validity of statute upheld in previous case, court will not expand, by remand directions, issues not raised below. Provance v. Shawnee Mission U.S.D. No. 512, 235 K. 927, 933, 683 P.2d 902 (1984).

10. Supreme court opinion shall contain syllabus confined to points of law arising from facts of case. State v. Sims, 254 K. 1, 862 P.2d 359 (1993).

11. Whether Kansas Supreme Court's sua sponte recall of appeals court mandate reversing conviction violated due process examined. Dye v. Kansas State Supreme Court, 830 F.Supp. 1379, 1383 (1993).

12. Law of the case doctrine precluded review of second appeal concerning untimely notice to seek hard 40 sentence. State v. Collier, 263 K. 629, 634, 952 P.2d 1326 (1998).

13. Mandate of appellate court to district court becomes part of judgment of case or controls further proceedings of case. State v. Prater, 31 K.A.2d 388, 65 P.3d 1048 (2003).

14. No mandate in first appeal to control district court's reconsideration of prior motion in limine. State v. Morton, 283 K. 464, 473, 153 P.3d 532 (2007).

15. Mentioned in concurring opinion, K.S.A. 60-2106 codifies that appellate court's opinion shall control further proceedings. Cooke v. Gillespie, 285 K. 748, 759, 176 P.3d 144 (2008).

16. Cited by dissent in discussion of K.S.A. 60-455 and admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts. State v. Prine, 287 K. 713, 744, 200 P.3d 1 (2009).

17. Whether a district court has complied with the mandate of an appellate court is a question of law over which the supreme court exercises plenary review. State v. Tafoya, 304 K. 663, 667, 372 P.3d 1247 (2016).

 | Next

  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

  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

Session Laws

Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department