Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-211 (2026)

Signing of pleadings, motions and other papers; representations to the court; sanctions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-211. Signing of pleadings, motions and other papers; representations to the court; sanctions. (a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name, or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, telephone number and fax number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting or later advocating it, an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subsection (b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm or party that violated the statute or is responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate or employee. The sanction may include an order to pay to the other party or parties that* reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion or other paper. A motion for sanctions under this section may be served and filed at any time during pendency of the action, but must be filed not later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.

(d) Inapplicability to discovery. Subsections (a) through (c) do not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections and motions that are subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-226 through 60-237, and amendments thereto.

(e) Applicability to the state. The state of Kansas, including an agency or political subdivision thereof, is subject to this section.

(f) Monetary sanctions against inmate. If the court imposes monetary sanctions on an inmate in the custody of the secretary of corrections, the secretary is authorized to disburse any money in the inmate's account to pay the sanctions.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-211; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 28, 1976; L. 1982, ch. 241, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 78; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 105 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Wood v. Groh, 7 P.3d 1163 (Kan. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wood v. Groh, 7 P.3d 1163 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 18× “" Although the court found that the three post-trial filings violated K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-211(b), the court chose to verbally admonish the Woods' counsel instead of awarding attorney fees as the Grohs had requested.”

Evenson Trucking Co. v. Aranda, 127 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 14× “) Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 2002, Aranda filed a motion to determine costs and for sanctions against Evenson pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-211. Essentially reiterating his April 23 response, Aranda alleged that Evenson failed to make a “reasonable inquiry” as to the…”

Ross-Williams v. Bennett, 419 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “Under the appropriate circumstances, one may request the imposition of sanctions pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-211 against a person who has abused the judicial process.”

Moreland v. Perkins, Smart & Boyd, 240 P.3d 601 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 20× “3d 292 (2006): "When an appellate court reviews a district court's decision to impose sanctions under K.S.A.2004 Supp. 60-211, its function is to determine whether substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact that the statutory requirements for…”

In re the Marriage of Bergmann, 305 P.3d 664 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “Sokol appeals the district court’s setting of guardian ad litem (GAL) fees at $175 per hour and the assessment of sanctions against him pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-211. This is the eighth appeal before our court involving this family.”

Thornburg v. Schweitzer, 240 P.3d 969 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “The district court determined that Bremen’s policy provided no coverage for the incident, but the court refused to award attorney fees and costs to Bremen under K.S.A. 60-211. Before us in this appeal are the coverage question and the propriety of the court’s denial of costs and…”

Vondracek v. Mid-State Co-Op, Inc., 79 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “The issues are whether the district court erred in finding that the Vondraceks failed to sufficiently plead fraud and in assessing sanctions under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-211. We affirm the grant of summary judgment but reverse the assessment of sanctions.”

Telegram Publ'g Co. v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 69 P.3d 578 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 7× “Did the Court of Appeals correctly fail to apply sanctions under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-211? Yes. *781 4. Since the Court of Appeals held that the district court was incorrect in awarding costs under K.”

Hesston Corp. v. Kays, 870 P.2d 17 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 8× “Dissentei's appealed, and Hesston cross-appealed from the district court’s refusal to impose sanctions pursuant to K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-211. The dissenters raise four issues in their appeal.”

State v. Phelps, 598 P.2d 180 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 8× “Did he violate Kansas Statute, KSA 60-211 when he affixed his signature to the Motion for a New Trial?” The disciplinary hearing before the panel was held March 13, 14 and 15, 1978, with trial briefs submitted June 1, 1978.”

State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Sebelius, 179 P.3d 366 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 2× “500) (meritorious claims and contentions); see K.S.A. 60-211(b)(2), (c) (signing petition certifies good faith belief that claims are meritorious; sanctions provided for violations).”

Mercy Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc. v. Brinegar, 223 P.3d 311 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 47× “50-634(e) and K.S.A. 60-211 against Brinegar. He appeals from that judgment.”

Show all 105 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-211(a) — 13 cases

Moreland v. Perkins, Smart & Boyd, 240 P.3d 601 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “3d 292 (2006): "When an appellate court reviews a district court's decision to impose sanctions under K.S.A.2004 Supp. 60-211, its function is to determine whether substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact that the statutory requirements for…”

In Re the Protest Appeal of Rakestraw Bros., 337 P.3d 62 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

In re Care & Treatment of Merryfield (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

Picard v. Sugar Valley Lakes Homes Ass'n., 151 P.3d 850 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).

In Re Protest Appeals of Lyerla, Kathy L. Liv. Trust, 336 P.3d 882 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

— K.S.A. § 60-211(b) — 15 cases

Wood v. Groh, 7 P.3d 1163 (Kan. 2000). “" Although the court found that the three post-trial filings violated K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-211(b), the court chose to verbally admonish the Woods' counsel instead of awarding attorney fees as the Grohs had requested.”

Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood v. Kline, 197 P.3d 370 (Kan. 2008).

Vondracek v. Mid-State Co-Op, Inc., 79 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “The issues are whether the district court erred in finding that the Vondraceks failed to sufficiently plead fraud and in assessing sanctions under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-211. We affirm the grant of summary judgment but reverse the assessment of sanctions.”

Evenson Trucking Co. v. Aranda, 127 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2006). “) Shortly thereafter, on May 3, 2002, Aranda filed a motion to determine costs and for sanctions against Evenson pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-211. Essentially reiterating his April 23 response, Aranda alleged that Evenson failed to make a “reasonable inquiry” as to the…”

In re the Marriage of Bergmann, 305 P.3d 664 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “Sokol appeals the district court’s setting of guardian ad litem (GAL) fees at $175 per hour and the assessment of sanctions against him pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-211. This is the eighth appeal before our court involving this family.”

— K.S.A. § 60-211(b)(1) — 8 cases

Mercy Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc. v. Brinegar, 223 P.3d 311 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “50-634(e) and K.S.A. 60-211 against Brinegar. He appeals from that judgment.”

In re Knopp (Kan. 2016).

Mboumi v. Horton (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

In re Marriage of Hardin (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-211(b)(2) — 7 cases

State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Sebelius, 179 P.3d 366 (Kan. 2008). “500) (meritorious claims and contentions); see K.S.A. 60-211(b)(2), (c) (signing petition certifies good faith belief that claims are meritorious; sanctions provided for violations).”

Garrison v. Ward (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

In re Knopp (Kan. 2016).

In re Est. of Lyons (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-211(b)(3) — 5 cases

In re Johnston, 520 P.3d 737 (Kan. 2022).

In re Knopp (Kan. 2016).

In re Kenney, 490 P.3d 1194 (Kan. 2021).

In re Est. of Lentz (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 60-211(b)(l) — 4 cases

Thornburg v. Schweitzer, 240 P.3d 969 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “The district court determined that Bremen’s policy provided no coverage for the incident, but the court refused to award attorney fees and costs to Bremen under K.S.A. 60-211. Before us in this appeal are the coverage question and the propriety of the court’s denial of costs and…”

Bus. Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Envirotech Heating & Cooling, Inc., 992 P.2d 1250 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).

Mercy Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc. v. Brinegar, 223 P.3d 311 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “50-634(e) and K.S.A. 60-211 against Brinegar. He appeals from that judgment.”

In Re the Est. of Mater, 8 P.3d 1274 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

— K.S.A. § 60-211(c) — 24 cases

Ross-Williams v. Bennett, 419 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Under the appropriate circumstances, one may request the imposition of sanctions pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-211 against a person who has abused the judicial process.”

— K.S.A. § 60-211(f) — 1 case

Holt v. State, 232 P.3d 848 (Kan. 2010).

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.