Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 2; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 2; R.S. 1923, 60-102.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Construction of pleadings, see 60-208(e).

Amendments and supplemental pleadings permitted, see 60-215.

Harmless errors to be disregarded, see 60-261.

Restrictions as to applicability of article 2 and exceptions, see 60-265.

Article 2 not to affect district court jurisdiction or venue, see 60-266.

Practice rules by district courts permitted, see 60-267.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Procedure by court rules discussed prior to enactment of new code, Spencer A. Gard, 5 K.L.R. 42, 57 (1956).

"The Enlargement of Jurisdiction Over Unlicensed Foreign Corporations Committing Torts in Kansas," Russell D. Jacobson, 12 K.L.R. 49, 50, 51 (1963).

Application of pretrial discovery methods to information regarding insurance policies, Gary Kershner, 5 W.L.J. 270, 279 (1966).

Construction of civil code discussed with respect to district court rules, D. Keith Anderson, 6 W.L.J. 113, 120, 128, 131, 132 (1966).

"Evidence: The Admissibility of Computer Print-outs in Kansas," Thomas E. Lowman, 8 W.L.J. 330, 336 (1969).

Article concerning delay in courts. George S. Reynolds, 12 W.L.J. 12, 13 (1972).

Comment concerning discovery of insurance policy limits, Randy L. Baird, 11 W.L.J. 327 (1972).

"Governmental Liability: The Kansas Tort Claims Act [or the King Can Do Wrong]," John A. Hageman and Lee A. Johnson, 19 W.L.J. 260, 269 (1980).

"Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Actions," Gregory M. Dennis, 11 J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, 14 (1987).

"Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Actions: How Will Kansas Respond?" Michael D. Moeller, 39 K.L.R. 199, 215 (1990).

"The Time-Tested Use of ex parte Communications: Interviewing a Plaintiff's Health Care Providers as a Vital Means of Discovery," Kyle J. Steadman, K.D.J. Winter (2009).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-102 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Notice of appeal; interpretation of new code. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boston Insurance Co., 106 Kan. 323, 327, 411 P.2d 616.

2. Common-law rule that statutes in derogation thereof be strictly construed made inapplicable by enactment. Jones v. Garrett, 192 Kan. 109, 113, 386 P.2d 194.

3. Considered; determination of "good cause" for production of documents under K.S.A. 60-234. Alseike v. Miller, 196 Kan. 547, 554, 412 P.2d 1007.

4. Cited in determining constitutionality of L. 1965, chapter 278 (K.S.A. 38-802 et seq.) (dissenting opinion). State, ex rel. v. Owens, 197 Kan. 212, 232, 416 P.2d 259.

5. Summary judgment procedures implement policy of section; such procedures may be used in garnishment proceedings. Gilley v. Farmer, 207 Kan. 536, 539, 540, 485 P.2d 1284.

6. Liberal construction compels conclusion that language used in K.S.A. 60-216(7) contemplates encouragement of settlement; existence of liability insurance and policy limits thereof are subject to disclosure at pretrial conference. Cropp v. Woleslagel, 207 Kan. 627, 631, 485 P.2d 1271.

7. Cited in holding trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend original petition by changing name of defendant. Marr v. Geiger Ready-Mix Co., 209 Kan. 40, 44, 49, 495 P.2d 1399.

8. Mentioned in considering habeas corpus action alleging mistreatment of penitentiary inmates. Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442, 450, 497 P.2d 265.

9. Conclusion that city's notice of appeal, signed and filed by three city commissioners, was sufficient, is consistent herewith. Benson v. City of DeSoto, 212 Kan. 415, 422, 510 P.2d 1281.

10. Section applied; deposition admissible. Stremel v. Sterling, 1 Kan. App. 2d 310, 312, 564 P.2d 559.

11. Section cited; habeas corpus not proper proceeding for review of K.S.A. 75-5211. Foster v. Maynard, 222 Kan. 506, 512, 565 P.2d 285.

12. Affidavit of service not shown in record; service of process proper; rules of civil procedure liberally construed. Pedi Bares, Inc. v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 567 F.2d 933, 934, 936.

13. Cited; chapters 60 and 61 are to be liberally construed to secure just, speedy and inexpensive determinations. Nolan v. Auto Transporters, 226 Kan. 176, 181, 597 P.2d 614.

14. Failure of court to notify parties of judgment does not invalidate it. Daniels v. Chaffee, 230 Kan. 32, 37, 630 P.2d 1090 (1981).

15. Violation of federal Civil Rights Acts adequately pleaded; future rules. Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy, 231 Kan. 507, 514, 515, 646 P.2d 1078 (1982).

16. Motion for return of garnished funds may be treated as application to intervene. Dailey v. Walden, 7 Kan. App. 2d 712, 714, 648 P.2d 258 (1982).

17. Error to exclude evidence of prior carelessness of defendant's employee when offered to show negligence in supervision. McGraw v. Sanders Co. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 233 Kan. 766, 770, 667 P.2d 289 (1983).

18. Provisions herein do not apply to service under K.S.A. 20-1204 (contempt). Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 389, 390, 673 P.2d 1126 (1983).

19. Procedural provisions of chapter 60 relative to judgment, postjudgment motions and appeals applicable to workers' compensation appeals. Dieter v. Lawrence Paper Co., 237 Kan. 139, 143, 697 P.2d 1300 (1985).

20. Treating former petition for instructions (K.S.A. 59-301 repealed, L. 1976) as declaratory judgment (K.S.A. 60-257) not a denial of due process. In re Petition of City of Moran, 238 Kan. 513, 517, 713 P.2d 451 (1986).

21. Cited in holding that K.S.A. 60-203(b) should be liberally construed to insure just determination of any action despite irregularities. Hughes v. Martin, 240 Kan. 370, 375, 729 P.2d 1200 (1986).

22. Court is final arbiter in determining whether jurisdictional requirements have been met. State v. Griffin, 241 Kan. 68, 70, 734 P.2d 1089 (1987).

23. Cited; relationship between compliance with K.S.A. 60-258 (mailing entry of judgment) and extension provided by K.S.A. 60-206(e) examined. Danes v. St. David's Episcopal Church, 242 Kan. 822, 825, 752 P.2d 653 (1988).

24. Cited; pleading of civil right violation rather than false arrest violation, applicable statute of limitations examined. Massey v. Shepack, 12 Kan. App. 2d 770, 773, 757 P.2d 329 (1988).

25. Liberal rules construction regarding use of deposition (K.S.A. 60-232) examined where plaintiff-citizen of Nigeria unable to return to U.S. Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 13 Kan. App. 2d 197, 207, 766 P.2d 837 (1989).

26. Specific provisions of K.S.A. 60-203 as controlling over K.S.A. 60-206 examined. Read v. Miller, 14 Kan. App. 2d 274, 280, 788 P.2d 883 (1990).

27. Specific provisions of K.S.A. 60-203 regarding extension of time for service of process examined; time frame for granting extension determined. Read v. Miller, 247 Kan. 557, 563, 802 P.2d 528 (1990).

28. Applying new rule on appeals retroactively where parties proceeded properly under old rule would be at odds with spirit of code. Evans v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 15 Kan. App. 2d 97, 99, 803 P.2d 1033 (1991).

29. Submitting to personal jurisdiction, service by certified mail. Elkhart Co-op Equity Exchange v. Hicks, 16 Kan. App. 2d 336, 340, 823 P.2d 223 (1992).

30. Cited; whether appellant's notice of appeal sufficiently identified rulings challenged to give appeals court jurisdiction examined. Hess v. St. Francis Regional Med. Center, 254 Kan. 715, 720, 869 P.2d 598 (1994).

31. Cited; whether trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because out-of-state service by corporation was invalid examined. In re Marriage of Welliver, 254 Kan. 801, 806, 869 P.2d 653 (1994).

32. Cited; whether K.S.A. 60-206 should be used to compute time requirements unless statute expressly provides otherwise examined. State v. Johnson, 19 Kan. App. 2d 315, 316, 868 P.2d 555 (1994).

33. Section to be liberally construed to secure speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. State v. Boyd, 268 Kan. 600, 999 P.2d 265 (2000).

34. Untimely reply to request for admission does not require admission to be deemed admitted. Underhill v. Thompson, 37 Kan. App. 2d 870, 879, 158 P.3d 987 (2007).

35. Appellate court had no jurisdiction over appellant's equal protection claim asserted for first time on appeal. Walker v. Regehr, 41 Kan. App. 2d 352, 202 P.3d 712 (2009).