Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-2106 (2026)

Appellate court decisions; school finance issues, limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-2106. Appellate court decisions; school finance issues, limitations. (a) Opinions. It shall be the duty of the judges of an appellate court to prepare and file with the papers in each case, the opinion of the court upon the questions of law arising in the case, within 60 days after the decision of the same; and the opinion so filed shall be treated as a part of the record in the case, but no costs shall be charged therefor, except for copies thereof ordered by a party, and no mandate shall be sent to the court below, until the opinion provided for by this section has been filed.

A memorandum opinion may be prepared in any case where no new question of law is decided or which is otherwise considered as having no value as a precedent. Such a memorandum opinion need not contain a syllabus or statement of facts. In all other cases a formal opinion shall be prepared.

(b) Syllabus. Each formal opinion shall contain a syllabus of the points of law decided, which shall be confined to those questions necessarily arising from the facts in the case.

(c) Judgment and mandate. The supreme court may by rule provide for post decision motions for rehearing or other relief. When under such rule a decision of an appellate court becomes final, such court shall promptly cause to be transmitted to the clerk of the district court its mandate containing such directions as are appropriate under the decision. A copy of the opinion of the court shall accompany and be a part of the mandate. The clerk of the district court shall make a notation thereof on the appearance docket. Such mandate and opinion, without further order of the judge, shall thereupon be a part of the judgment of the court if it is determinative of the action, or shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court.

(d) As a part of a remedy, preliminary decision or final decision in which a statute or legislative enactment of this state has been held unconstitutional as a violation of article 6 of the Kansas constitution, the appellate court or any master or other person or persons appointed by the appellate court to hear or determine a cause or controversy or to make or enforce any order or remedy ordered by a court pursuant to K.S.A. 60-253, and amendments thereto, or any other provision of law, shall not have the authority to order a school district or any attendance center within a school district to be closed or enjoin the use of all statutes related to the distribution of funds for public education.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2106; amended by Supreme Court order dated January 5, 1972; L. 1975, ch. 178, § 30; L. 2005, ch. 2, § 23 (Special Session); July 28.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 61 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Cooke v. Gillespie, 176 P.3d 144 (Kan. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cooke v. Gillespie, 176 P.3d 144 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 4× “Moreover, once the Court of Appeals issued its opinionto distribute the funds equitablyand once we denied Cooke's petition for review, the Court of Appeals' mandate was issued and Judge Burgess ultimately followed it, as he was required to do, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2106(c)…”

State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “20-108 and K.S.A. 60-2106 compels the trial court to proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case as established on appeal.”

Gannon v. State, 368 P.3d 1024 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 1131 (1995); see also K.S.A. 60-2106(c) (appellate court mandate and opinion "shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court").”

State v. Collier, 952 P.2d 1326 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 60-2106 relates to judgments and mandates of appellate court decisions, and subsection (c) in applicable part provides: “When .”

State v. Tafoya, 372 P.3d 1247 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 902 (1984) (construing K.S.A. 60-2106). Furthermore, “where our decision and mandate [of foe appellate court] does not fully determine the issues pending before the trial court.”

Snider v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 298 F.3d 1120 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 2× “60-2106(c), sometimes referred to as the “mandate rule,” the Kansas Legislature has directed an appellate court to transmit to the district court a “mandate containing such directions as are appropriate under the decision.”

State v. Prine, 200 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “20-111 (requiring opinions to include a syllabus setting out “the points decided in the case”); K.S.A. 60-2106 (b) (appellate opinions “shall contain a syllabus of the points of law decided”).”

State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “at 635 (discussing K.S.A. 60-2106 and the “mandate rule”); Duffitt & Ramsey v.”

Martinez v. Milburn Enter., Inc., 233 P.3d 205 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-2106(c) (Supreme Court may by rule provide for postdecision motions for rehearing; when under such rule a decision of an appellate court becomes final, such court shall promptly cause transmission of its mandate).”

State v. Fraire, 481 P.3d 129 (Kan. 2021). “3d 961 (2019), we referred to K.S.A. 60-2106(c), which sets out the remedies available to the Kansas Supreme Court, 17 and concluded that vacating postrelease supervision required no further proceedings at the district court level.”

State v. Becker, 459 P.3d 173 (Kan. 2020). “" The district court erred in imposing a term of postrelease supervision rather than parole.”

State v. Clark, 486 P.3d 591 (Kan. 2021). “K.S.A. 60-2106(c) provides, in part, that the mandate and accompanying opinion of an appellate court "shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court.”

Show all 61 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-2106(b) — 4 cases

State v. Prine, 200 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2009). “20-111 (requiring opinions to include a syllabus setting out “the points decided in the case”); K.S.A. 60-2106 (b) (appellate opinions “shall contain a syllabus of the points of law decided”).”

Sedlak v. Dick, 887 P.2d 1119 (Kan. 1995).

State v. Sims, 862 P.2d 359 (Kan. 1993).

In re the Est. of Anderson, 865 P.2d 1037 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

— K.S.A. § 60-2106(c) — 48 cases

Cooke v. Gillespie, 176 P.3d 144 (Kan. 2008). “Moreover, once the Court of Appeals issued its opinionto distribute the funds equitablyand once we denied Cooke's petition for review, the Court of Appeals' mandate was issued and Judge Burgess ultimately followed it, as he was required to do, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2106(c)…”

Gannon v. State, 368 P.3d 1024 (Kan. 2016). “2d 1131 (1995); see also K.S.A. 60-2106(c) (appellate court mandate and opinion "shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in the district court").”

Snider v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 298 F.3d 1120 (Kan. 2013). “60-2106(c), sometimes referred to as the “mandate rule,” the Kansas Legislature has directed an appellate court to transmit to the district court a “mandate containing such directions as are appropriate under the decision.”

Martinez v. Milburn Enter., Inc., 233 P.3d 205 (Kan. 2010). “K.S.A. 60-2106(c) (Supreme Court may by rule provide for postdecision motions for rehearing; when under such rule a decision of an appellate court becomes final, such court shall promptly cause transmission of its mandate).”

— K.S.A. § 60-2106(fo) — 1 case

State v. Brown, 667 P.2d 388 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983).

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.