pleading requirement in Kansas

2020This court has held the pleading requirement for KJRA actions only requires facts demonstrating a right to review; the petition need not include "legal arguments or statutory citations." Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 404 , 204 P.3d 562 (2009).

2020This court has held the pleading requirement for KJRA actions only requires facts demonstrating a right to review; the petition need not include "legal arguments or statutory citations." Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 404 , 204 P.3d 562 (2009).

2009In Bruch , we indicated that this pleading requirement serves two purposes: (1) It puts the district court and administrative agency on notice as to what issues will be reviewed, and (2) it assures that only issues that were raised at the administrative hearing will be considered on appeal. 282 Kan. at 783 .

2008Moreover, an opposing party is entitled to know the exact nature of the claimed errors, and each error must be separately and distinctly stated so an opponent can adequately prepare and respond to the issues being reviewed. [Citation omitted.]’ ” 282 Kan. at 780 (quoting Kohorst, 348 N.W.2d at 621 ).

2022Instead, K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512 "merely requires the prisoner to allege that the evidence is related to the investigation or prosecution of his or her conviction, that the State has possession or constructive possession of the evidence, and that the evidence was not previously subjected to DNA testing or that it could be tested using new DNA testing techniques." Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603, 606 , 88 P.3d 214 (2004). 22 While the pleading requirement set forth in Bruner generally remains true, we must provide some clarification in light of our statutory interpretation.

2022Instead, K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512 "merely requires the prisoner to allege that the evidence is related to the investigation or prosecution of his or her conviction, that the State has possession or constructive possession of the evidence, and that the evidence was not previously subjected to DNA testing or that it could be tested using new DNA testing techniques." Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603, 606 , 88 P.3d 214 (2004). 22 While the pleading requirement set forth in Bruner generally remains true, we must provide some clarification in light of our statutory interpretation.

2022App. 2d 312, 319 , 152 P.3d 670 (2007), our court subjected a fraudulent misrepresentation claim to the heightened pleading standard under K.S.A. 60-209(b).

2019Schuyler v. Roberts, 285 Kan. 677, 679 , 175 P.3d 259 (2008).

2019Schuyler v. Roberts, 285 Kan. 677, 679 , 175 P.3d 259 (2008).

2017The court pointed out that K.S.A. 60-1507 motions have a heightened pleading standard because the underlying criminal case already developed the record. 42 Kan.

2016But this court implicitly rejected that in 1976, when comparing 213205 with its predecessor and concluding “there is very little, if any, difference in the meaning of die language used in the two sections.” State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, 102 , 551 P.2d 783 (1976).

2016But this court implicitly rejected that in 1976, when comparing 213205 with its predecessor and concluding “there is very little, if any, difference in the meaning of die language used in the two sections.” State v. Motor, 220 Kan. 99, 102 , 551 P.2d 783 (1976).

2012Hemphill, 44 Kan.

2012The panel ultimately was persuaded that constructive fraud claims should be subject to the heightened pleading standard, Hemphill, 44 Kan.

2008Moreover, an opposing party is entitled to know the exact nature of the claimed errors, and each error must be separately and distinctly stated so an opponent can adequately prepare and respond to the issues being reviewed. [Citation omitted.]’ ” 282 Kan. at 780 (quoting Kohorst, 348 N.W.2d at 621 ).

2006The Kansas Court of Appeals has addressed the pleading requirement in Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 30 Kan.

2006App. 2d 37 , 36 P.3d 853 (2001).

2005Although the district court erroneously applied a heightened pleading standard in holding that Bloom had failed to state a claim, “ '[a] trial court’s reason for its decision is immaterial if the ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” See Drake v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 272 Kan. 231, 239 , 32 P.3d 705 (2001) (quoting KPERS v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 110, 118 , 936 P.2d 714 [1997]).

2005Although the district court erroneously applied a heightened pleading standard in holding that Bloom had failed to state a claim, “ '[a] trial court’s reason for its decision is immaterial if the ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” See Drake v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 272 Kan. 231, 239 , 32 P.3d 705 (2001) (quoting KPERS v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 110, 118 , 936 P.2d 714 [1997]).

2005Although the district court erroneously applied a heightened pleading standard in holding that Bloom had failed to state a claim, “ '[a] trial court’s reason for its decision is immaterial if the ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” See Drake v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 272 Kan. 231, 239 , 32 P.3d 705 (2001) (quoting KPERS v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 110, 118 , 936 P.2d 714 [1997]).

2005Although the district court erroneously applied a heightened pleading standard in holding that Bloom had failed to state a claim, “ '[a] trial court’s reason for its decision is immaterial if the ruling is correct for any reason.’ ” See Drake v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 272 Kan. 231, 239 , 32 P.3d 705 (2001) (quoting KPERS v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 262 Kan. 110, 118 , 936 P.2d 714 [1997]).

2003However, K.S.A. 60-212(b) further provides that “[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense provided in subsection (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in K.S.A. 60-256 See Davidson v. Denning, 259 Kan. 659, 666-67 , 914 P.2d 936 (1996) (relying on 60-212[b][6] in applying the standard of summaiy judgment).

2003However, K.S.A. 60-212(b) further provides that “[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense provided in subsection (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in K.S.A. 60-256 See Davidson v. Denning, 259 Kan. 659, 666-67 , 914 P.2d 936 (1996) (relying on 60-212[b][6] in applying the standard of summaiy judgment).

2002The heightened pleading standard requires the complaint/petition to contain “specific, non-conclusory allegations of fact sufficient to allow the district court to determine that those facts, if proved, demonstrate that the actions taken were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” McCormick, 272 Kan. at 637 (quoting Van Deelen v. City of Eudora, Kan., 53 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1232-33 [D.

2002The McCormick court followed the lead of the Tenth Circuit, holding that when a § 1983 violation is claimed, the heightened pleading standard is no longer applicable. 272 Kan. at 638 .

2001As noted by our Court of Appeals, “prosecutors have absolute immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, that is, for performing the traditional functions of an advocate.” 28 Kan.

1995See Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority, 241 Kan. 13, 24-29 , 735 P.2d 222 (1987); Bethany Medical Center v. Knox, 10 Kan.