History:
L. 1970, ch. 132, § 3; Repealed, L. 1994, ch. 301, § 86; July 1, 1995.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Applied; purpose of K.S.A. 23-451 and 23-481 construed; action for injunctive relief in responding court dismissed. Thompson v. Kite, 214 Kan. 700, 703, 522 P.2d 327.
2. Applied; judge in responding state without jurisdiction to condition disbursement of payments on visitation rights. Patterson v. Patterson, 2 Kan. App. 2d 447, 448, 581 P.2d 824.
3. Noted in action upholding jurisdiction of trial court to enforce defaulting parent's common law duty of child support. Keller v. Guernsey, 227 Kan. 480, 487, 608 P.2d 896.
4. Cited; relationship between URESA child support order and prior divorce decree child support award examined. Wornkey v. Wornkey, 12 Kan. App. 2d 506, 509, 749 P.2d 1045 (1988).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1978–1988 · leading case: Keller v. Guernsey, 608 P.2d 896 (Kan. 1980).
Keller v. Guernsey, 608 P.2d 896 (Kan. 1980). “To argue that a parent’s duty of support may depend upon which tsixpayers are burdened with the responsibility, absent such support, justifies no further comment by this court. It is further contended that the enactment of 60-1610(a) and 23-451 provide the only means for…”
Wornkey v. Wornkey, 749 P.2d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Steven claimed that Sherry should be estopped to claim the Geary County order was void because she had notice, either constructive or actual, of the oral motion. Whether Sherry had notice of Steven’s oral motion to reduce child support is irrelevant to the authority of the Geary…”
Patterson v. Patterson, 581 P.2d 824 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “The goal sought by this législation is to provide a prompt, expeditious way of enforcing the duty to support minor children without getting the parties involved in other complex, collateral *448 issues.”
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.