K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-102 (2026)

Construction

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

60-102. Construction. The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed, administered and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-102; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 65; L. 2017, ch. 75, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 8× “K.S.A. 60-102 (provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall be liberally construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding); K.”
Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 260 P.3d 1218 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “Before we analyze the applicable rules of civil procedure and service of process, we note that in 2010, the Legislature amended many of the statutes we will be addressing in this opinion; in particular K.S.A 60-102, K.S.A. 60-203(a) and (b), K.”
Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dep't of Health & Env't, 673 P.2d 1126 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-102. In any method of serving process set forth in Article 3 of Chapter 60, substantial compliance *390 therewith shall effect valid service of process if the court finds that, notwithstanding some irregularity or omission, the party served was made aware that an…”
State v. Rocheleau, 415 P.3d 422 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “22- 2103 (requiring Kansas courts to construe the code of criminal procedure "to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay"); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-102 ("The provisions of this act shall be liberally…”
Buchanan v. Overley, 178 P.3d 53 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 60-102. This general entreaty should provide the context for any "strict" compliance requirement; lien statements must be complete in showing the statutory elements and they must be verified, but there is no call for the finespun distinction embraced by the majority.”
Berst v. Chipman, 653 P.2d 107 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “Our code of civil procedure is to be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action (K.S.A. 60-102)." Several courts have identified guidelines to determine how a balance should be struck between competing interests in a particular…”
Snodgrass v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 789 P.2d 211 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 2× “A unanimous court, speaking through Justice Holmes, stated: "Considering the liberal construction to be given our procedural statutes and rules and the intent of our code of civil procedure and our appellate rules, we find no fatal jurisdictional defects and will proceed to…”
Fisher v. DeCarvalho, 314 P.3d 214 (Kan. 2013). “” K.S.A. 60-102. Moreover, the law prefers that cases be decided on their merits rather than on technical compliance with procedural rules.”
Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-102 requires us to construe the code of civil procedure liberally "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.”
In Re Jones, 612 P.2d 1211 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 265 (1972), this court stated: *94 "First of all, K.S.A. 60-102 mandates that the provisions of the code `shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding'.”
Ponds v. State, 437 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “Under these facts, and without engaging in any lengthy analysis, our Supreme Court allowed the notice of appeal to become a valid premature notice of appeal, finding that "Defendants have shown no prejudice resulting from the alleged premature filing of the notice of appeal.”
Byrd v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 221 P.3d 1168 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “8-1002(c) (Furse 1991), the Anderson court relied on several cases that refused to apply the substantial compliance doctrine to notice and service provisions because, unlike the Rules of Civil Procedure contained in Chapter 60 (which allows for liberal construction and…”
Show all 69 citing cases →
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.