Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-208 (2026)

General rules of pleadings

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-208. General rules of pleadings. (a) Claim for relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(2) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. Except in contract actions, every pleading demanding relief for money damages in excess of $75,000, without demanding a specific amount of money, must state only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $75,000. Every pleading demanding relief for money damages in an amount of $75,000 or less must specify the amount sought as damages.

(b) Defenses, admissions and denials. (1) In general. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) State in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials; responding to the substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

(3) General and specific denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading, including the jurisdictional grounds, may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying part of an allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking knowledge or information. A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of failing to deny. An allegation, other than one relating to the amount of damages, is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

(c) Affirmative defenses. (1) In general. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including:

(A) Accord and satisfaction;

(B) arbitration and award;

(D) contributory negligence or comparative fault;

(E) duress;

(F) estoppel;

(G) failure of consideration;

(H) fraud, illegality;

(I) injury by fellow servant;

(J) laches;

(K) license;

(L) payment;

(M) release;

(N) res judicata;

(O) statute of frauds;

(P) statute of limitations; and

(Q) waiver.

(2) Mistaken designation. If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as though it were correctly designated, and may impose terms for doing so.

(d) Pleading to be concise and direct; alternative statements; inconsistency. (1) In general. Each allegation must be simple, concise and direct. No technical form is required.

(2) Alternative statements of a claim or defense. A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.

(3) Inconsistent claims or defenses. A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.

(e) Construing pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-208; L. 1976, ch. 252, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 203, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 75; L. 2012, ch. 35, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 170 cases (35 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, res judicata (at least in the way it must be applied in the Kansas state courts) would have barred Plaintiffs from relitigating their state claims if the Brown County District Court could have properly considered the doctrine.”

Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 618 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-208. See Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No.”

Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 681 P.2d 630 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-208(/) declares that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.”

Amundson & Assocs. Art Studio, Ltd. v. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 977 F. Supp. 1116 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 60-208, every pleading which demands relief in excess of $50,000 shall (without demanding any specific amount of money) set forth that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $50,000, except in actions sounding in contract.”

Simmons v. Porter, 312 P.3d 345 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 3× “To support this logic, the court further observed the legislature did not delete “assumption of risk” from the affirmative defenses set out in the general pleadings statute, K.S.A. 60-208(c), when that statute was amended after comparative fault was adopted.”

Sylvia v. Wisler, 875 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2017). “Sylvia from pleading in the alternative claims sounding in both tort and contract. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)-(3) (allowing the pleading of claims “alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count .”

Lytle v. Stearns, 830 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 5× “They assert that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-208 authorizes the use of alternative notice pleading.”

State v. Parry, 358 P.3d 101 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “It is unnecessary to examine whether all the elements of res judicata or collateral estoppel are present in this case, however, because in this jurisdiction those are affirmative defenses which this court cannot apply sua sponte.”

Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 680 P.2d 877 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2× “In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmative accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant,…”

Ware v. Christenberry, 637 P.2d 452 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “In Griffith the Supreme Court, in discussing the application of the doctrine of election of remedies under K.S.A. 60-208 and 60-218, stated: “Under these rules consistency of claims is not important at the pleading stage, the practical effect of which is to diminish the doctrine…”

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 270 P.3d 1074 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 2× “60-2403(a) is a statute of hmitation, which under K.S.A. 60-208(c) is an affirmative defense that NPIC was required to plead.”

In Re the Est. of Heiman, 241 P.3d 161 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Maurice, of course, should then answer, asserting any affirmative defenses he considers appropriate, as provided in K.S.A. 60-208(c). Reversed and remanded.”

Show all 170 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-208(a) — 29 cases

Berry v. Nat'l Med. Servs., Inc., 205 P.3d 745 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 472 P.3d 110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

John Doe v. M.J., 508 P.3d 368 (Kan. 2022).

Golden v. Den-Mat Corp., 276 P.3d 773 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 665 P.2d 730 (Kan. 1983).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(a)(1) — 16 cases

McCormick v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Comm'rs, 35 P.3d 815 (Kan. 2001).

Montoy v. State, 62 P.3d 228 (Kan. 2003).

Pioneer Ridge Nursing Facility Operations, L.L.C. v. Ermey, 203 P.3d 4 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

T.H. & C.C. v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 388 P.3d 181 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).

Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 551 P.3d 142 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(a)(2) — 1 case

Lafferty v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (D. Kan. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(a)(6) — 1 case

Johnson v. Creason (Bankr. D. Kan. 2023).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(a)(l) — 3 cases

Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln Cnty. Conservation Dist., 31 P.3d 970 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).

Hemphill v. Shore, 289 P.3d 1173 (Kan. 2012).

Gatlin v. Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley & Arnett, P.A., 26 P.3d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(b) — 2 cases

Gorrell v. City of Parsons, 576 P.2d 616 (Kan. 1978).

Felix v. Turner Unified Sch. Dist. No. 202, 923 P.2d 1056 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c) — 62 cases

Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “Accordingly, res judicata (at least in the way it must be applied in the Kansas state courts) would have barred Plaintiffs from relitigating their state claims if the Brown County District Court could have properly considered the doctrine.”

State v. Parry, 358 P.3d 101 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “It is unnecessary to examine whether all the elements of res judicata or collateral estoppel are present in this case, however, because in this jurisdiction those are affirmative defenses which this court cannot apply sua sponte.”

Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 680 P.2d 877 (Kan. 1984). “In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmative accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant,…”

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 270 P.3d 1074 (Kan. 2011). “60-2403(a) is a statute of hmitation, which under K.S.A. 60-208(c) is an affirmative defense that NPIC was required to plead.”

Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 106 P.3d 483 (Kan. 2005).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(1) — 1 case

Todd v. Sedgwick Cnty. Emergency Med. Svcs. (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(1)(O) — 1 case

Savage v. Timsah (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(1)(P) — 2 cases

Bouton v. Byers, 321 P.3d 780 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

Baker v. State, 454 P.3d 621 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(1)(Q) — 1 case

Harder v. Foster (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(l)(C) — 1 case

Simmons v. Porter, 312 P.3d 345 (Kan. 2013). “To support this logic, the court further observed the legislature did not delete “assumption of risk” from the affirmative defenses set out in the general pleadings statute, K.S.A. 60-208(c), when that statute was amended after comparative fault was adopted.”

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(l)(P) — 1 case

LCL, LLC v. Falen, 390 P.3d 571 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(c)(l)(Q) — 1 case

Smith v. Oliver Heights, LLC, 311 P.3d 1139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(d) — 2 cases

Diversified Fin. Planners, Inc. v. Maderak, 811 P.2d 1237 (Kan. 1991).

Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Emmanuel Church of God in Christ, 280 P.3d 795 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(d)(2) — 2 cases

Travelers Cas. Ins. v. Karns (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

Kucharski-Berger v. Hill's Pet Nutrition (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(e) — 6 cases

Bank of Blue Valley v. Duggan Homes, Inc., 303 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).

Kucharski-Berger v. Hill's Pet Nutrition (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

State v. Brown (Kan. 2025).

McGarrah v. Connell (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

MidFirst Bank v. Sipple (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(e)(1) — 2 cases

Gatlin v. Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley & Arnett, P.A., 26 P.3d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).

Gatlin v. Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley & Arnett, Pa, 26 P.3d 1284 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(e)(2) — 3 cases

Ware v. Christenberry, 637 P.2d 452 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “In Griffith the Supreme Court, in discussing the application of the doctrine of election of remedies under K.S.A. 60-208 and 60-218, stated: “Under these rules consistency of claims is not important at the pleading stage, the practical effect of which is to diminish the doctrine…”

St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Weiss, 869 P.2d 606 (Kan. 1994).

Lytle v. Stearns, 830 P.2d 1197 (Kan. 1992). “They assert that K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-208 authorizes the use of alternative notice pleading.”

— K.S.A. § 60-208(e)(l) — 1 case

Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 681 P.2d 630 (Kan. 1984). “K.S.A. 60-208(/) declares that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.”

— K.S.A. § 60-208(f) — 3 cases

In Re the Est. of Heiman, 241 P.3d 161 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Maurice, of course, should then answer, asserting any affirmative defenses he considers appropriate, as provided in K.S.A. 60-208(c). Reversed and remanded.”

State v. $6,618.00 U.S. Currency, 128 P.3d 413 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

Bank of Blue Valley v. Duggan Homes, Inc., 303 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).

— K.S.A. § 60-208(o) — 1 case

Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 101, 612 P.2d 150 (Kan. 1980).

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.