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

K.S.A. § 38-2256 (2026)

Rehearing

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-2256. Rehearing. After the entry of any dispositional order, the court may rehear the matter on its own motion or the motion of a party or interested party. Upon notice, pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2254, and amendments thereto, and after the rehearing, the court may enter any dispositional order authorized by this code, except that a child support order which has been registered under K.S.A. 38-2279, and amendments thereto, may only be modified pursuant to K.S.A. 38-2279, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 2006, ch. 200, § 51; January 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2022 · leading case: In re N.E., 516 P.3d 586 (Kan. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re N.E., 516 P.3d 586 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 4× “S.A. 38-2256. In re N.A.C. reasoned that the statutory requirements and timelines governing each phase of a CINC proceeding provide meaning to the types of appealable orders identified in K.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2256. In N.A.C.’s case, an order of disposition was filed on January 12, 2012, after the CINC court held N.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 361 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2256. Permanency Review before Termination.”
Interest of C.E., 275 P.3d 67 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, the county attorney could have filed a motion to reconsider with the court under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2256, or, if it was an appealable order, the county attorney could have appealed the magistrate court’s order, but SRS had no independent authority to do so.”
In re Interests of P.J., 430 P.3d 988 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “We note, however, that there is no statutorily prescribed standard of review set out under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 38-2253, K.S.A. 2017 Supp.”
In the Interests of A.S., 364 P.3d 1203 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “The Supreme Court defined a disposition order pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 38-2255 and K.S.A. 2014 Supp.”
In re L.G., 459 P.3d 840 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 38-2256. It is within this statutory scheme that the district court in this case issued the following orders: October 30, 2018: After hearing from the parties and counsel at a pretrial hearing in the CINC case, the district court took judicial notice of the…”
In re N.A.C., No. 109208 (Kan. July 11, 2014). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38-2256. 18 In N.A.C.'s case, an order of disposition was filed on January 12, 2012, after the CINC court held N.”
In re N.E., 497 P.3d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 38-2256. 10 Here, the district court entered a dispositional order at the adjudication hearing on September 17, 2019.”
In re L.G., 501 P.3d 911 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Accordingly, even if Mother had preserved her argument on appeal, a review of the record reveals that the district court correctly applied the best interests standard in determining L.”
In re A.S., No. 113315 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015). “The Supreme Court defined a disposition order pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 38-2255 and K.S.A. 2014 Supp.”
In re Ce, 275 P.3d 67 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Accordingly, the county attorney could have filed a motion to reconsider with the court under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2256, or, if it was an appealable order, the county attorney could have appealed the magistrate court's order, but SRS had no independent authority to do so.”
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.