60-1504.
Answer.
(a)
Time.
Except as provided in subsection (b), the person to whom the writ is directed shall file an answer thereto within 72 hours after the writ is served or at such other time as shall be specified in the writ.
(b)
Time; exceptions.
If the petition for writ challenges a denial of parole or a prison disciplinary action, the person to whom the writ is directed shall file an answer thereto within 30 days after the writ is served or at such other time as specified in the writ.
(c)
Contents.
The answer must be verified by the person making it and shall contain: (1) a statement of the authority or reasons for the restraint, (2) a copy of the written authority for the restraint, if any, (3) if the custody of the party has been transferred, a statement as to whom, the time, place, and reason for the transfer, and (4) if it is claimed that the party cannot be produced for any reason, a statement as to the reasons why the party cannot be produced.
(d) Truth of contents. The contents of the answer, if not controverted by the plaintiff, shall be accepted as true except as to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that the contents are not true.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1504; L. 1994, ch. 227, § 5; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case:
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-1504(c). If the petitioner does not controvert the contents of the answer, the allegations are considered true unless the judge makes findings to the contrary based on the evidence.”
Sauls v. McKune, 260 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “But the Secretary did not file the answer called for by the writ and K.S.A. 60-1504; he instead filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the delay that took place between October 2008 (when Sauls gave the petition to prison officials) and May 2009 (when the Secretary received…”
Pabst v. State, 192 P.3d 630 (Kan. 2008).
“K.S.A. 60-1504 (the person to whom a K.S.”
Norwood v. Roberts, 393 P.3d 169 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
“K.S.A. 60-1504. Norwood first filed his petition on May 26, 2015 , and the Secretary filed a timely motion to dismiss on Juñe 18, 2015, arguing that Norwood’s petition was *780 filed too late.”
Sauls v. McKune, 238 P.3d 747 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “But the Secretary did not file the answer called for by the writ and K.S.A. 60-1504; he instead filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the delay that took place between October 2008 (when Sauls gave the petition to prison officials) and May 2009 (when the Secretary received…”
Klein v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“The fundamental problem with these assertions is that they do not address the one question relevant under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1504(f)(2)(A)—"why [Klein] failed to file the motion within the one-year time limitation.”
Wooldridge v. Snyder, Warden (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
“60-1501 petition in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1504(c) and, instead, filed an improper motion under K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-1504(a) — 2 cases
Sauls v. McKune, 260 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“But the Secretary did not file the answer called for by the writ and K.S.A. 60-1504; he instead filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the delay that took place between October 2008 (when Sauls gave the petition to prison officials) and May 2009 (when the Secretary received…”
Sauls v. McKune, 238 P.3d 747 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“But the Secretary did not file the answer called for by the writ and K.S.A. 60-1504; he instead filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the delay that took place between October 2008 (when Sauls gave the petition to prison officials) and May 2009 (when the Secretary received…”
— K.S.A. § 60-1504(c) — 2 cases
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
“K.S.A. 60-1504(c). If the petitioner does not controvert the contents of the answer, the allegations are considered true unless the judge makes findings to the contrary based on the evidence.”
Wooldridge v. Snyder, Warden (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
“60-1501 petition in accordance with K.S.A. 60-1504(c) and, instead, filed an improper motion under K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-1504(d) — 1 case
Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).
“K.S.A. 60-1504(c). If the petitioner does not controvert the contents of the answer, the allegations are considered true unless the judge makes findings to the contrary based on the evidence.”
— K.S.A. § 60-1504(f)(2)(A) — 1 case
Klein v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“The fundamental problem with these assertions is that they do not address the one question relevant under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1504(f)(2)(A)—"why [Klein] failed to file the motion within the one-year time limitation.”
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.