K.S.A. » Chapter 12
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-105 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-105.

History: R.S. 1923, § 12-105; L. 1957, ch. 84, § 1; L. 1970, ch. 67, § 1; Repealed, L. 1979, ch. 186, § 33; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1928–2025 · leading case: Murphy v. City of Topeka, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murphy v. City of Topeka, 630 P.2d 186 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 11× “The court found that plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice requirements of K.S.A. 12-105 and since that statute was applicable to any agency of a city, his action must, therefore, be dismissed.”
Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D. Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “Our cases that have considered whether to dismiss claims or give a plaintiff an opportunity to amend when a plaintiff has not pleaded the required notice under K.S.A. § 12-105(b) also have found dismissal appropriate.”
Quigley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 647 F. Supp. 656 (D. Kan. 1986). · cites it 16× “Prior to 1979, the statutory notice scheme applicable to claims brought against a municipality consisted of K.S.A. 12-105, 12-105a, and 12-105b. Section 12-105b imposed a general notice requirement on all parties who bring claims against a municipality (defined in K.”
Wiggins v. Hous. Auth. of Kansas City, 873 P.2d 1377 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 12-105 required persons having tort claims to give notice before filing an action.”
Tucking v. Bd. of Jefferson Cnty. Comm'rs., 796 P.2d 1055 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “Prior to 1979 when it was repealed, a different notice requirement was found in K.S.A. 12-105. In some form that statute had been on the books since 1903.”
King v. Pimentel, 890 P.2d 1217 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Mahan argued that Bradford failed to state a cause of action in his petition because he failed to allege the statutory notice required by K.S.A. 12-105 (Weeks) (repealed L. 1979, ch.”
Bell v. Kansas City, Kansas, Hous. Auth., 992 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 5× “In discussing the Housing Authority’s arguments, we first note that the predecessor statute to the notice provision, K.S.A. 12-105 (Corrick), stated: “No action shall be maintained by any person or corporation against any city on account of injury to person or property unless…”
Blackmon v. U.S.D. 259 Sch. Dist., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Kan. 2011). · cites it 2× “12(b)(1) based on diversity jurisdiction; (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (3) insufficient service of process, resulting in lack of personal jurisdiction over all Defendants; (4) inability of Plaintiff to enforce…”
Woods v. Homes & Structures of Pittsburg, Kansas, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 1270 (D. Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “These include the Kansas Notice of Claim Statute (K.S.A. 12-105), failure to plead a condition precedent, immunity and the Tenth Amendment.”
Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 759 F. Supp. 692 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 12-105, repealed, 1979 Kan.Sess.”
Gorrell v. City of Parsons, 576 P.2d 616 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “In addition, it alleges that the petition fails to state a “cause of action” upon which relief may be granted; that the City is immune from this suit by virtue of the doctrine of governmental immunity; and that plaintiffs failed to properly comply with K.S.A. 12-105, as amended,…”
Whaley v. Sharp, 343 P.3d 63 (Kan. 2014). “The officer argued plaintiff failed to plead in his petition compliance with the now-repealed K.S.A. 12-105, which provided: “ ‘No action shall be maintained by any person or corporation against any city on account of injury to person or property unless the person or corporation…”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 12-105(6) — 1 case
Doe v. Unified Sch. Dist., 255 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Kan. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 12-105(b) — 11 cases
Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D. Kan. 2016). “Our cases that have considered whether to dismiss claims or give a plaintiff an opportunity to amend when a plaintiff has not pleaded the required notice under K.S.A. § 12-105(b) also have found dismissal appropriate.”
Blackmon v. U.S.D. 259 Sch. Dist., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Kan. 2011). “12(b)(1) based on diversity jurisdiction; (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (3) insufficient service of process, resulting in lack of personal jurisdiction over all Defendants; (4) inability of Plaintiff to enforce…”
Tucking v. Bd. of Jefferson Cnty. Comm'rs., 796 P.2d 1055 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “Prior to 1979 when it was repealed, a different notice requirement was found in K.S.A. 12-105. In some form that statute had been on the books since 1903.”
In Re Cline, 217 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2009).
Rubio v. Turner Unified Sch. Dist. No. 202, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Kan. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 12-105(b)(d) — 1 case
Tahchawwickah (ID 131457) v. Brennon (D. Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 12-105(d) — 2 cases
Dozier v. Franklin Cnty., Kansas, Bd. of Commissioners (D. Kan. 2021).
Leichty v. Bethel Coll. (D. Kan. 2019).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.