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

K.S.A. § 60-1502 (2026)

Petition

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

60-1502. Petition. The petition shall be verified and state: (1) The place where the person is restrained and by whom; (2) the cause or pretense of the restraint to the best of plaintiff's knowledge and belief; and (3) why the restraint is wrongful. Individuals in the custody of the secretary of corrections must also include a list of all civil actions, including habeas corpus actions, the inmate has filed, or participated in, in any state court within the last five years.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1502; L. 1996, ch. 148, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Griffin v. Gilchrist, 100 P.3d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Griffin v. Gilchrist, 100 P.3d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “60-1502 provides the requirements for the contents of a habeas corpus petition and states as follows: “The petition shall be verified and state: (1) The place where the person is restrained and by whom; (2) the cause or pretense of the restraint to the best of plaintiffs…”
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022). “K.S.A. 60-1502. Once an inmate files a K.”
Stewart v. Sec'y of Corr., 27 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “The district court held that Stewart had refused to verify his petition as required by K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-1502, and, therefore, he did not comply with the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure.”
In Re Application of Horst, 14 P.3d 1162 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “60-212(b)(6), moved to dismiss, contending it had no one in custody who could be produced, the petition failed to state a cause of action under K.S.A. 60-1502, and the petition stated an insufficient factual basis upon which the writ could be issued.”
Denney v. Inmate Review Bd. (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “The court found that Denney's petition did not comply with the procedural requirements in K.S.A. 60-1502 because it was not verified and did not include a list of all civil actions, including habeas corpus actions, that Denney had participated in or filed in any state court…”
Avriett v. State, 75 P.3d 766 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “Avriett alleged: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) tire police lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain him following a traffic stop; (3) the State failed to prove that consent to search was voluntarily given; and (4) the police…”
Jaghoori v. Langford (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Using a form order, the district court dismissed Jaghoori's habeas corpus action in June 2021 for two reasons. The district court found, without further explanation, that the petition failed to allege facts warranting relief.”
Limburg v. Spriritual Life Ctr. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “That statutory requirement creates a jurisdictional barrier that any petitioner must meet before bringing a habeas corpus petition under K.”
Woods v. Harvey Cnty. Sheriff (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 60-1502; 315 Kan. at 173 . We also note that Woods suggests—for the first time on appeal—that he falls under the umbrella of "confinement" because "he has now been convicted and placed on probation .”
Caddell v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “60-1507(e) provides that a prisoner must seek relief under "this section"—meaning K.”
State v. Hartfield (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “K.S.A. 60-1502. Though Hartfield's 60-1501 petition centered on his argument that his parole eligibility date was incorrect and as such he was entitled to the adjustment of the date and a hearing before the Board, his brief on appeal relies on his postpetition claims that KDOC…”
Strader v. Zmuda (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “K.S.A. 60-1502. If the initial submission does, only then will the district court require a response from the appropriate government actor followed by a prompt hearing to determine the merits of the petition.”
Show all 13 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.