K.S.A. » Chapter 60

K.S.A. § 60-203

Commencement of action

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-203. Commencement of action. (a) Time of commencement. A civil action is commenced at the time of: (1) Filing a petition with the court, if service of process is obtained or the first publication is made for service by publication within 90 days after the petition is filed, except that the court may extend that time an additional 30 days upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff; or (2) service of process or first publication, if service of process or first publication is not made within the time specified by paragraph (1).

(b) Curing invalid service. If service of process or first publication purports to have been made but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to an irregularity in form or procedure or a defect in making service, the action is considered to have been commenced at the applicable time under subsection (a) if valid service is obtained or first publication is made within 90 days after that adjudication, except that the court may extend that time an additional 30 days upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.

(c) Entry of appearance. The filing of an entry of appearance has the same effect as service. Written contact with the court by a defendant, or an attorney for the defendant invoking protection for the defendant under the servicemembers civil relief act (50 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.), and amendments thereto, is not an entry of appearance.

(d) Electronic filing. As used in this section, filing a petition with the court includes receipt by the court of a petition by electronic means complying with supreme court rules.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, § 60-203; L. 1983, ch. 193, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 202, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 169, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 128, § 12; L. 2005, ch. 45, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 70; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 155 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Fisher v. DeCarvalho
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2013) kan · cites it 34× “K.S.A. 60-203(a). In this case, Fisher had to complete service of process by December 30, 2009, in order for her lawsuit to be deemed to be commenced on October 1, 2009, i.”
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2011) kanctapp · cites it 71× “I respectfully concur because I believe the majority opinion correctly states the precedent which interprets K.S.A. 60-203, K.S.A. 60-204, and K.S.A. 60-212.”
Read v. Miller (1990) kan · cites it 36× “purports to have been made within the time specified by subsection (a)(1) but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced by the original…”
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan · cites it 12× “The KDR denies making a voluntary entry of appearance but argues the provisions of K.S.A. 60-203 are necessary to supplement the KJRA (as allowed by Pittsburg State University) to establish how long a licensee has to secure jurisdiction over the involved state agency, in this…”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan · cites it 14× “But, the administrator was appointed—and thereby given capacity to be sued—only 89 *1240 days after the statute of limitations ran; the Administrator was served 13 days later (thus meeting the K.S.A. 60-203[a] time requirement for commencing an action); and the dispositive…”
Grimmett v. Burke (1995) kanctapp · cites it 22× “60-203(a), the re-serve provisions of K.S.A. 60-203(b) do not and cannot apply, and the trial court’s ruling permitting re-service should be set aside because the action was never commenced within the statutory period of limitations.”
Hajda v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority (2015) kanctapp · cites it 31× “The district court held that the issue was strictly a matter of law and found: (1) Hajda knew or should have known she had suffered injury by April 1, 2011; (2) Pursuant to K.”
Hughes v. Martin (1986) kan · cites it 21× “The basic issue presented on appeal is one of statutory interpretation and requires the court to construe K.S.A. 60-203 and K.S.A. 60-204, which provide as follows: “60-203.”
Slayden v. Sixta (1992) kan · cites it 12× “60-517 by the absence of Sixta from the state, and (2) the 90-day relation back period to obtain service under K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-203 was extended by the “unique circumstances” doctrine of Schroeder v.”
LE v. Joslin (2009) kanctapp · cites it 19× “1992), the federal district court held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause under K.S.A. 60-203 to warrant the earlier grant of the 30-day extension to obtain service of process on the defendant.”
Jenkins v. City of Topeka (1997) ksd · cites it 40× “In diversity actions, state statute of limitations govern state law claims. Burnett v. Perry Manufacturing, Inc.”
Estate of Norris ex rel. Norris v. Hastings (2006) kanctapp · cites it 19× “On April 11, 2003, defendant moved for summary judgment under K.S.A. 60-203(a) on the grounds plaintiffs suit was barred by the statute of limitations because plaintiff had failed to serve defendant within 90 days of filing the petition.”
Show all 155 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-203(B) — 1 case
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2011) kanctapp “I respectfully concur because I believe the majority opinion correctly states the precedent which interprets K.S.A. 60-203, K.S.A. 60-204, and K.S.A. 60-212.”
— K.S.A. § 60-203(a) — 58 cases
Read v. Miller (1990) kan “purports to have been made within the time specified by subsection (a)(1) but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced by the original…”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan “But, the administrator was appointed—and thereby given capacity to be sued—only 89 *1240 days after the statute of limitations ran; the Administrator was served 13 days later (thus meeting the K.S.A. 60-203[a] time requirement for commencing an action); and the dispositive…”
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2011) kanctapp “I respectfully concur because I believe the majority opinion correctly states the precedent which interprets K.S.A. 60-203, K.S.A. 60-204, and K.S.A. 60-212.”
Read v. Miller (1990) kanctapp
Sauls v. McKune (2011) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-203(a)(1) — 9 cases
LE v. Joslin (2009) kanctapp “1992), the federal district court held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate good cause under K.S.A. 60-203 to warrant the earlier grant of the 30-day extension to obtain service of process on the defendant.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan “But, the administrator was appointed—and thereby given capacity to be sued—only 89 *1240 days after the statute of limitations ran; the Administrator was served 13 days later (thus meeting the K.S.A. 60-203[a] time requirement for commencing an action); and the dispositive…”
Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand (2007) kan
Thermal Components Company v. Griffith (2000) ksd
Read v. Miller (1990) kan “purports to have been made within the time specified by subsection (a)(1) but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced by the original…”
— K.S.A. § 60-203(a)(2) — 13 cases
United States v. Salina Regional Health Center, Inc. (2006) ksd
Read v. Miller (1990) kan “purports to have been made within the time specified by subsection (a)(1) but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced by the original…”
Mangus v. Stump (2011) kanctapp
Smith v. Graham (2006) kan
Cook v. Cook (2003) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-203(a)(l) — 16 cases
Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio (2007) kan
Smith v. Graham (2006) kan
Lindenman v. Umscheid (1994) kan
Wandrey v. Service Business Forms, Inc. (1991) ksd
Read v. Miller (1990) kan “purports to have been made within the time specified by subsection (a)(1) but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced by the original…”
— K.S.A. § 60-203(b) — 35 cases
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2013) kan “K.S.A. 60-203(a). In this case, Fisher had to complete service of process by December 30, 2009, in order for her lawsuit to be deemed to be commenced on October 1, 2009, i.”
Fisher v. DeCarvalho (2011) kanctapp “I respectfully concur because I believe the majority opinion correctly states the precedent which interprets K.S.A. 60-203, K.S.A. 60-204, and K.S.A. 60-212.”
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan “The KDR denies making a voluntary entry of appearance but argues the provisions of K.S.A. 60-203 are necessary to supplement the KJRA (as allowed by Pittsburg State University) to establish how long a licensee has to secure jurisdiction over the involved state agency, in this…”
Hajda v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority (2015) kanctapp “The district court held that the issue was strictly a matter of law and found: (1) Hajda knew or should have known she had suffered injury by April 1, 2011; (2) Pursuant to K.”
Grimmett v. Burke (1995) kanctapp “60-203(a), the re-serve provisions of K.S.A. 60-203(b) do not and cannot apply, and the trial court’s ruling permitting re-service should be set aside because the action was never commenced within the statutory period of limitations.”
— K.S.A. § 60-203(c) — 12 cases
Jenkins v. City of Topeka (1997) ksd “In diversity actions, state statute of limitations govern state law claims. Burnett v. Perry Manufacturing, Inc.”
Fisher v. Lynch (2008) ksd
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan “The KDR denies making a voluntary entry of appearance but argues the provisions of K.S.A. 60-203 are necessary to supplement the KJRA (as allowed by Pittsburg State University) to establish how long a licensee has to secure jurisdiction over the involved state agency, in this…”
Jordan v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County (2015) ksd
Lindenman v. Umscheid (1994) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-203(d) — 1 case
In Re the Care & Treatment of Goracke (2000) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-203(e) — 2 cases
Jenkins v. City of Topeka (1997) ksd “In diversity actions, state statute of limitations govern state law claims. Burnett v. Perry Manufacturing, Inc.”
Wheaton v. Ahrens (1997) ksd
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.