60-410. Determination as to propriety of judicial notice and tenor of matter noticed. (a) The judge shall afford each party reasonable opportunity to present to him or her information relevant to the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter or to the tenor of the matter to be noticed.
(b) In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter or the tenor thereof, (1) the judge may consult and use any source of pertinent information, whether or not furnished by a party; and (2) no exclusionary rule except a valid claim of privilege shall apply.
(c) If the information possessed by or readily available to the judge, whether or not furnished by the parties, fails to convince the judge that a matter falls clearly within K.S.A. 60-409, or if it is insufficient to enable him or her to notice the matter judicially, he or she shall decline to take judicial notice thereof.
(d) In any event the determination either by judicial notice or from evidence of the applicability and the tenor of any matter of common law, constitutional law, or of any statute, private act, resolution, ordinance or regulation falling within K.S.A. 60-409, shall be a matter for the judge and not for the jury.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-410; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
L. 1947, ch. 321, ยง 2.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Dubious Doctrines in Administrative Law," David L. Ryan and Edwin P. Carpenter, 11 W.L.J. 351, 367 (1972).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1961 Supp. 60-2879.
1. Cited; court upheld denial of overtime wages to school custodial personnel. Razey v. Unified School District, 205 Kan. 551, 555, 470 P.2d 809.
2. Court not required to take judicial notice of annuity tables offered as exhibits where no foundation laid as required by K.S.A. 60-409. Gannaway v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Rld. Co., 2 Kan. App. 2d 81, 82, 575 P.2d 566.
3. Whether judge's erroneous adoption of another district court case by judicial notice is reversible error examined. Catholic Housing Services, Inc. v. State Dept. of SRS, 256 Kan. 470, 477, 886 P.2d 835 (1994).
4. District court upheld in its refusal to take judicial notice of certain facts based on relevancy. Central Natural Resources v. Davis Operating Co., 288 Kan. 234, 201 P.3d 680 (2009).
|
|