60-1503.
The writ.
(a)
Issuance.
The petition shall be presented promptly to a judge in the district court in accordance with the procedure of the court for the assignment of court business. The petition shall be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is assigned. If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached thereto that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief in the district court, the petition shall be dissolved at the cost of the plaintiff. If the judge finds that the plaintiff may be entitled to relief, the judge shall issue the writ and order the person to whom the writ is directed to file an answer within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate.
(b)
Form.
The writ shall be directed to the party having the person under restraint and shall command such person to have the restrained person before the judge at the time and place specified in the writ.
(c)
Service.
The writ shall be served without delay. If directed to the sheriff it shall be served by the clerk. If directed to any other person it shall be served by the sheriff or some other person designated by the judge. If the person to whom it is directed cannot be found or shall refuse admittance, the writ may be served by leaving it at such person's residence or affixing it at some conspicuous place where the party is confined or restrained.
(d)
Sundays, holidays and accessibility.
The writ may be issued and served at any time, including Sundays, holidays, and days on which the office of the clerk of the court is not accessible.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1503; L. 1994, ch. 227, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 11, § 17; April 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case:
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 7× “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1503(a) does not specify the type of hearing required to adjudicate an inmate's habeas corpus petition—the judge is merely required to proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause.”
Hogue v. Bruce, 113 P.3d 234 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that some evidence supported the finding of conduct violations which subjected Hogue to discipline and that Hogue’s constitutional rights were not violated.”
Schuyler v. Roberts, 175 P.3d 259 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 3× “The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal. In dismissing this action the district court was required to examine the allegations in the petition and the contents of any attachments.”
Sauls v. McKune, 260 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 60-1503(a). The statute provides for service of the writ upon the Secretary, K.”
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…”
Washington v. Roberts, 152 P.3d 660 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“A writ should issue under K.S.A. 60-1503, after which an answer may be filed stating the reasons for the prison officials’ alleged refusal to allow Washington to call his requested witnesses.”
Williams v. DesLauriers, 172 P.3d 42 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“60-1501 petition is well established: “K.S.A. 60-1503 authorizes the summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits attached thereto that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
Merryfield v. Kansas Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 236 P.3d 528 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Medical and Treatment Records Meriyfield challenges the district court’s dismissal of his habeas coipus petition.”
Pew v. Sullivan, 329 P.3d 496 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“at 648-49 ; see K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-1503(a). “An appellate court reviews a summary dismissal de novo.”
Amos v. Simmons, 82 P.3d 859 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“Also, because K.S.A. 60-1503(a) and 60-1505(a) state that costs shall be assessed against the petitioner when a court determines *368 that no relief is available pursuant to K.”
Denney v. Norwood (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “" Denney's argument rests on the remedy ordered in Schuyler, where the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court because the question as to the second factor "require[d] fact-finding beyond the examination of the pleading and its attachments as called in for…”
— K.S.A. § 60-1503(a) — 48 cases
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
“K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1503(a) does not specify the type of hearing required to adjudicate an inmate's habeas corpus petition—the judge is merely required to proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause.”
Sauls v. McKune, 260 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“” K.S.A. 60-1503(a). The statute provides for service of the writ upon the Secretary, K.”
Pew v. Sullivan, 329 P.3d 496 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“at 648-49 ; see K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-1503(a). “An appellate court reviews a summary dismissal de novo.”
Amos v. Simmons, 82 P.3d 859 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“Also, because K.S.A. 60-1503(a) and 60-1505(a) state that costs shall be assessed against the petitioner when a court determines *368 that no relief is available pursuant to K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-1503(c) — 2 cases
Sauls v. McKune, 260 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“” K.S.A. 60-1503(a). The statute provides for service of the writ upon the Secretary, K.”
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.