K.S.A. » Chapter 38
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 38-1566 (2026)

Repealed

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

38-1566.

History: L. 1982, ch. 182, § 50; L. 1983, ch. 140, § 26; L. 2000, ch. 150, § 15; Repealed, L. 2006, ch. 200, § 120; January 1, 2007.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Mentioned, there is no right to appeal from district court judgment regarding SRS placement with potential adoptive families. In re A.F., 38 Kan. App. 2d 742, 745, 172 P.3d 63 (2007).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2006–2007 · leading case: In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “38-1584(d) within the framework of a proceeding initiated by SRS through notice under K.S.A. 38-1566. Contrary to its apparent decision to invoke the procedure outlined by 38-1566, SRS argued in district court and on appeal that the standards and procedure under that statute…”
In the Interest of A.F., 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “This new provision clarifies the right that had been previously identified in K.S.A. 38-1566 and interpreted in the M.R.”
In Re Mr, 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “38-1584(d) within the framework of a proceeding initiated by SRS through notice under K.S.A. 38-1566. Contrary to its apparent decision to invoke the procedure outlined by 38-1566, SRS argued in district court and on appeal that the standards and procedure under that statute…”
In Re Af, 172 P.3d 63 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “This new provision clarifies the right that had been previously identified in K.S.A. 38-1566 and interpreted in the M.R.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1566(a) — 2 cases
In the Interest of M.R., 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “38-1584(d) within the framework of a proceeding initiated by SRS through notice under K.S.A. 38-1566. Contrary to its apparent decision to invoke the procedure outlined by 38-1566, SRS argued in district court and on appeal that the standards and procedure under that statute…”
In Re Mr, 146 P.3d 229 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “38-1584(d) within the framework of a proceeding initiated by SRS through notice under K.S.A. 38-1566. Contrary to its apparent decision to invoke the procedure outlined by 38-1566, SRS argued in district court and on appeal that the standards and procedure under that statute…”
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.