History:
L. 1978, ch. 231, § 6; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Applied; another state found to be exercising jurisdiction in substantial conformity with act. Beebe v. Chavez, 226 Kan. 591, 600, 602 P.2d 1279.
2. District court has jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1303 where one of the parties and child or children meet provisions of statute even though another state is "home state" under K.S.A. 38-1302(e). Larsen v. Larsen, 5 Kan. App. 2d 284, 288, 615 P.2d 806.
3. Cited; burden to establish pendency of another action and applicability of UCCJA examined; pending divorce proceeding in France noted. In re Marriage of Nasica, 12 Kan. App. 2d 794, 797, 758 P.2d 240 (1988).
4. Where jurisdictional conflict evident, court erred in failing to communicate with other jurisdiction. In re L.C., 18 Kan. App. 2d 627, 631, 857 P.2d 1375 (1993).
In Re the Marriage of Nasica, 758 P.2d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4דK.S.A. 38-1306. The purpose of K.S.A. 38-1306 is to discourage simultaneous and competitive child custody proceedings.”
Beebe v. Chavez, 602 P.2d 1279 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 1978 Supp. 38-1306. Arizona has also adopted that act.”
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2דSee also K.S.A. 38-1306. This rule has been applied by this court in divorce proceedings where a custody determination is involved.”
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 6 of the act (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1306) deals with the situation where proceedings are pending in another state, which is not the case here.”
State Ex Rel. in Interest of Rp v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “465, RSMo 1994; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1306 . [3] Here, no Kansas court has exercised jurisdiction over R.”
State ex rel. R.P. v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “465, RSMo 1994; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1306 . 3 Here, no Kansas court has exercised jurisdiction over R.”
Johnson v. Melback, 612 P.2d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 38-1306. Arizona has also adopted that act.”
In re L.C., 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 38-1306(c) states: “If the court is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction it shall likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
In Re Lc, 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 38-1306(c) states: "If the court is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction it shall likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1306(b) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Nasica, 758 P.2d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “K.S.A. 38-1306. The purpose of K.S.A. 38-1306 is to discourage simultaneous and competitive child custody proceedings.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1306(c) — 2 cases
In re L.C., 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 38-1306(c) states: “If the court is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction it shall likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
In Re Lc, 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “K.S.A. 38-1306(c) states: "If the court is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction it shall likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
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.