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

K.S.A. § 60-206 (2026)

Time, computation and extension; accessibility of court; definitions; extension or suspension of computation rules or time limitations by chief justice

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

60-206. Time, computation and extension; accessibility of court; definitions; extension or suspension of computation rules or time limitations by chief justice. (a) Computing time. The following provisions apply in computing any time period specified in this chapter, in any local rule or court order or in any statute or administrative rule or regulation that does not specify a method of computing time.

(1) Period stated in days or a longer unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time:

(A) Exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and

(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

(2) Period stated in hours. When the period is stated in hours:

(A) Begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period;

(B) count every hour, including hours during intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and

(C) if the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

(3) Inaccessibility of the clerk's office. Unless the court orders otherwise, if the clerk's office is inaccessible:

(A) On the last day for filing under subsection (a)(1), then the time for filing is extended to the first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday; or

(B) during the last hour for filing under subsection (a)(2), then the time for filing is extended to the same time on the first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

(4) "Last day" defined. Unless a different time is set by a statute, local rule or court order, the last day ends:

(A) For electronic or telefacsimile filing, at midnight in the court's time zone; and

(B) for filing by other means, when the clerk's office is scheduled to close.

(5) "Next day" defined. The "next day" is determined by continuing to count forward when the period is measured after an event and backward when measured before an event.

(6) "Legal holiday" defined. "Legal holiday" means any day declared a holiday by the president of the United States, the congress of the United States or the legislature of this state, or any day observed as a holiday by order of the Kansas supreme court. A half holiday is considered as other days and not as a holiday.

(b) Extending time. (1) In general. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A) With or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

(2) Exceptions. A court must not extend the time to act under K.S.A. 60-250(b), 60-252(b), 60-259(b), (e) and (f) and 60-260(b), and amendments thereto.

(c) Motions, notices of hearing and affidavits or declarations. (1) In general. A written motion and notice of the hearing must be served at least seven days before that time specified for the hearing with the following exceptions:

(A) When the motion may be heard ex parte;

(B) when these rules set a different time; or

(C) when a court order, which a party may, for good cause, apply for ex parte, sets a different time.

(2) Supporting affidavit or declaration. Any affidavit or declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, supporting a motion must be served with the motion. Except as otherwise provided in K.S.A. 60-259(d), and amendments thereto, any opposing affidavit or declaration must be served at least one day before the hearing, unless the court permits service at another time.

(d) Additional time after certain kinds of service. When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under K.S.A. 60-205(b)(2)(C) (mail), or (D) (leaving with the clerk), and amendments thereto, three days are added after the period would otherwise expire under subsection (a).

(e) Extension or suspension of deadlines during times of emergency. The chief justice of the Kansas supreme court may issue an order to extend or suspend computation rules or time limitations established in this section pursuant to K.S.A. 20-172, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-206; L. 1988, ch. 207, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 206, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 208, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 3; L. 2005, ch. 183, § 1; L. 2007, ch. 190, § 16; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 73; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 4; L. 2017, ch. 75, § 2; L. 2020, ch. 4, § 3; March 19.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 28× “Although subsection (b) of the former does provide for the enlargement of time for an act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect, the latter permits an extension of time in which to take an appeal only upon a showing of excusable neglect based on…”
State v. Johnson, 868 P.2d 555 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 23× “In its proposal on K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-206, the advisory committee stated, “We have followed Federal Rule 6 for general provisions covering computation and extension of time.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Park City, 260 P.3d 387 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 8× “Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like K.S.A. 60-206, did not allow for this extension and, as a result, the appeal was late.”
Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 10× “The Fund responded bv-contending it was entitled to the benefit of the “three-day mailing rule” under Supreme Court Rules 1.”
Marinhagen v. Boster, Inc., 840 P.2d 534 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “60-259[f]) and service of the notice (under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-206[e]), were the same.”
Danes v. St. David's Episcopal Church, 752 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff argues that his postjudgment motion was timely and relies upon Supreme Court Rule 134 and K.S.A. 60-206. Supreme Court Rule 134 governs the issuance of notice of a district court’s rulings: “Whenever a judge shall make a ruling on a motion or application of any kind…”
Daniels v. Chaffee, 630 P.2d 1090 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 10× “60-260( b ), a trial court retains a broad discretionary power to relieve a party from a final judgment for any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, if such power is exercised prior to the time for docketing an appeal from the judgment in the Supreme…”
J. A. Tobin Constr. Co. v. Kemp, 721 P.2d 278 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 6× “The district judge has the power to enlarge the time for performing certain acts under K.S.A. 60-206(b): "When by this chapter or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the judge for cause shown…”
Bain v. Cormack Enter., Inc., 986 P.2d 373 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 26× “44-573, the Director of Workers Compensation also relies upon the provisions of K.S.A. 60-206 for authority in adopting K.”
Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 3× “However, under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 60-206(a), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in the computation of any time period less than 11 days.”
Schroeder v. Urban, 750 P.2d 405 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 4× “Extensions of time are ordinarily governed by K.S.A. 60-206(b), which reads as follows: "(b) Enlargement.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Park City, 204 P.3d 648 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “at 293-94, 301 (appellants moved for an extension to file posttrial motions which, based on a simple reading of then applicable K.S.A. 60-206[b], was not allowed). Nevertheless, regardless of the previous statement’s accuracy in Finley, the Finley court obviously intended for…”
Show all 131 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a) — 48 cases
State v. Johnson, 868 P.2d 555 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “In its proposal on K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-206, the advisory committee stated, “We have followed Federal Rule 6 for general provisions covering computation and extension of time.”
Bain v. Cormack Enter., Inc., 986 P.2d 373 (Kan. 1999). “44-573, the Director of Workers Compensation also relies upon the provisions of K.S.A. 60-206 for authority in adopting K.”
Marinhagen v. Boster, Inc., 840 P.2d 534 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “60-259[f]) and service of the notice (under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-206[e]), were the same.”
Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996). “The Fund responded bv-contending it was entitled to the benefit of the “three-day mailing rule” under Supreme Court Rules 1.”
State v. Cheun-Phon Ji, 872 P.2d 748 (Kan. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Ewing (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
Jason Wayne Hachmeister v. Thomas Williams (D. Kan. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Bouton v. Byers, 321 P.3d 780 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Griffin (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Stewart (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Grubb (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a)(1)(C) — 3 cases
Scott v. Ewing, 437 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Grubb (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. $59,000 in U.S. Currency (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a)(2) — 1 case
Butler v. Shawnee Mission Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
Scott v. Ewing, 437 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b) — 19 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Park City, 260 P.3d 387 (Kan. 2011). “Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like K.S.A. 60-206, did not allow for this extension and, as a result, the appeal was late.”
Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). “Although subsection (b) of the former does provide for the enlargement of time for an act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect, the latter permits an extension of time in which to take an appeal only upon a showing of excusable neglect based on…”
Schroeder v. Urban, 750 P.2d 405 (Kan. 1988). “Extensions of time are ordinarily governed by K.S.A. 60-206(b), which reads as follows: "(b) Enlargement.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Park City, 204 P.3d 648 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “at 293-94, 301 (appellants moved for an extension to file posttrial motions which, based on a simple reading of then applicable K.S.A. 60-206[b], was not allowed). Nevertheless, regardless of the previous statement’s accuracy in Finley, the Finley court obviously intended for…”
Johnson v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 758 P.2d 206 (Kan. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b)(1) — 1 case
Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). “Although subsection (b) of the former does provide for the enlargement of time for an act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect, the latter permits an extension of time in which to take an appeal only upon a showing of excusable neglect based on…”
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b)(1)(A) — 2 cases
C.B. v. Bailey (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
All States Home Improvement v. Beltz (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
State v. Sheppard, 444 P.3d 1006 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b)(2) — 11 cases
Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). “Although subsection (b) of the former does provide for the enlargement of time for an act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect, the latter permits an extension of time in which to take an appeal only upon a showing of excusable neglect based on…”
J. A. Tobin Constr. Co. v. Kemp, 721 P.2d 278 (Kan. 1986). “The district judge has the power to enlarge the time for performing certain acts under K.S.A. 60-206(b): "When by this chapter or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the judge for cause shown…”
Read v. Miller, 788 P.2d 883 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
Slayden v. Sixta, 825 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1992).
Evenson Trucking Co. v. Aranda, 127 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2006).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(b)(l)(B) — 1 case
Vontress v. State, 325 P.3d 1114 (Kan. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(c) — 10 cases
Daniels v. Chaffee, 630 P.2d 1090 (Kan. 1981). “60-260( b ), a trial court retains a broad discretionary power to relieve a party from a final judgment for any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, if such power is exercised prior to the time for docketing an appeal from the judgment in the Supreme…”
Kerry G. v. Stacy C., 411 P.3d 1227 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
Binyon v. Nesseth, 646 P.2d 1043 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
In Re the Care & Treatment of Zishka, 343 P.3d 558 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
Kittle v. Owen, 573 P.2d 1115 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(c)(1) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Bahlmann, 440 P.3d 597 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(c)(2) — 1 case
Kerry G. v. Stacy C., 411 P.3d 1227 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(cz) — 1 case
Barnes v. Gideon, 578 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(d) — 9 cases
Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). “However, under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 60-206(a), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in the computation of any time period less than 11 days.”
Army Nat'l Bank v. Equity Developers, Inc., 774 P.2d 919 (Kan. 1989).
Wilson v. State, 192 P.3d 1121 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Pratt v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 296 P.3d 1128 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
Sullwold v. Barcus, 838 P.2d 908 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 60-206(e) — 33 cases
Danes v. St. David's Episcopal Church, 752 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1988). “Plaintiff argues that his postjudgment motion was timely and relies upon Supreme Court Rule 134 and K.S.A. 60-206. Supreme Court Rule 134 governs the issuance of notice of a district court’s rulings: “Whenever a judge shall make a ruling on a motion or application of any kind…”
Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996). “The Fund responded bv-contending it was entitled to the benefit of the “three-day mailing rule” under Supreme Court Rules 1.”
Marinhagen v. Boster, Inc., 840 P.2d 534 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “60-259[f]) and service of the notice (under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-206[e]), were the same.”
Schmidtlien Elec., Inc. v. Greathouse, 104 P.3d 378 (Kan. 2005).
Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). “However, under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 60-206(a), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded in the computation of any time period less than 11 days.”
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.