History:
L. 1978, ch. 231, § 5; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Severance of parental rights invalid for lack of adequate notice and because relief granted by default was not requested in pleadings. Sweetser v. Sweetser, 7 Kan. App. 2d 463, 464, 465, 643 P.2d 1150 (1982).
2. Due diligence to attempt to locate parent before service by publication may be used to sever parental rights; if parent located publication service may not be used. In re Woodard, 231 Kan. 544, 548, 549, 646 P.2d 1105 (1982).
In the Interest of Woodard, 646 P.2d 1105 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 3ד; KSA 38-1305, 1979 Supp.; and Kansas Appellate decisions construing these statutes.”
Arbogast v. Arbogast, 327 S.E.2d 675 (W. Va. 1984). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 38-1305. This record shows that notice of the modification hearing was mailed to Jacquelyn on July 21, 1982, less than thirty days before the hearing was conducted.”
In Re Marriage of Ruth, 83 P.3d 1248 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “Denise responded by filing a motion to dismiss on January 28, 2003, based in part on lack of proper service pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1305 (repealed effective July 1, 2000).”
Sweetser v. Sweetser, 643 P.2d 1150 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2דBecause the court also found that Michael might have moved to Florida, a notice of hearing was also required to be published pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1305 and K.S.A. 60-307(c) and (f).”
— K.S.A. § 38-1305(a)(4) — 1 case
In the Interest of Woodard, 646 P.2d 1105 (Kan. 1982). “; KSA 38-1305, 1979 Supp.; and Kansas Appellate decisions construing these statutes.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1305(a)(l) — 1 case
In the Interest of Woodard, 646 P.2d 1105 (Kan. 1982). “; KSA 38-1305, 1979 Supp.; and Kansas Appellate decisions construing these statutes.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1305(d) — 1 case
Arbogast v. Arbogast, 327 S.E.2d 675 (W. Va. 1984). “K.S.A. 38-1305. This record shows that notice of the modification hearing was mailed to Jacquelyn on July 21, 1982, less than thirty days before the hearing was conducted.”
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.