K.S.A. » Chapter 60

K.S.A. § 60-215

Amended and supplemental pleadings

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

60-215. Amended and supplemental pleadings. (a) Amendments before trial. (1) Amending as a matter of course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it; or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under subsections (b), (e) or (f) of K.S.A. 60-212, and amendments thereto, whichever is earlier.

(2) Other amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent, or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

(3) Time to respond. Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 21 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

(b) Amendments during and after trial. (1) Based on an objection at trial. If, at trial, a party objects that evidence is not within the issues raised in the pleadings, the court may permit the pleadings to be amended. The court should freely permit an amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the evidence would prejudice that party's action or defense on the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet the evidence.

(2) For issues tried by consent. When an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties' express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised in the pleadings. A party may move at any time, even after judgment, to amend the pleadings to conform them to the evidence and to raise an unpleaded issue. But failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of that issue.

(c) Relation back of amendments. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:

(1) The law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back;

(2) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out, or attempted to be set out, in the original pleading; or

(3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if paragraph (2) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party, including the period for service of process under K.S.A. 60-203, and amendments thereto, the party to be brought in by amendment:

(A) Received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and

(B) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

(d) Supplemental pleadings. On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-215; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 8; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 82; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 168 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Thompson v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thompson v. State (2011) kan · cites it 28× “60-1507, K.S.A. 60-215, and Supreme Court Rule 183 (2010 Kan.”
Martindale v. Tenny (1992) kan · cites it 17× “, d/b/a Geiger Ready-Mix Concrete Company, for the Geiger Ready-Mix Company, under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-215(a) and (c). The trial court sustained the plaintiff’s motion, permitting her to amend her original petition by changing the name of the defendant as requested.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan · cites it 15× “In the alternative, he argues that if an administrator can be appointed after the 2-year anniversary date, a formal amendment under K.S.A. 60-215 is required to properly name the actual administrator as defendant.”
Pabst v. State (2008) kan · cites it 10× “In a reply and a separate motion to strike, Pabst argued that, under K.S.A. 60-215, he had the right to amend his motion as a matter of course at any time prior to the State filing a responsive pleading; that the claims made in both pleadings were of the same type, permitting…”
Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Board of Regents (2001) kanctapp · cites it 15× “” It has been theorized that “[t]he provisions of K.S.A. 60-215 regarding amendment of pleading are not applicable: the KJRA does not contain provisions for substantial compli *41 anee similar to those found in Chapter 60.”
Estate of Belden v. Brown County (2011) kanctapp · cites it 4× “But K.S.A. 60-215 does not apply here. It pertains to amendments to pleadings in a pending suit.”
Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005) kan · cites it 4× “es: “(1) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subsection (g) or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this…”
King v. Pimentel (1995) kanctapp · cites it 10× “With regard to the other defendants, the question is whether a party responding to an amended pleading as required by K.S.A. 60-215(a) may include additional claims or defenses the party failed to include in an earlier pleading if those additional claims or defenses do not…”
Pedro v. Armour Swift-Eckrich (2000) ksd · cites it 8× “Both provisions, however, contain the same mistaken identity requirement: “the party to be brought in by amendment: .”
Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap & Co. (1994) kan · cites it 5× “The petition could only be amended with leave of the court (K.S.A. 60-215[a]). On May 4, 1993 , the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant firm.”
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer (1980) kan · cites it 4× “It is argued that to raise comparative negligence the third parties, when brought into the action, would have to respond by answer concerning their degree of liability to the Kennedys, instead of answering a claim for indemnity raised by the City of Sawyer and Mr.”
McDaniel v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL, INC. (2011) kanctapp · cites it 17× “The amendment of pleadings in Kansas is governed by K.S.A. 60-215. The McDaniels argue that based upon K.”
Show all 168 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-215(0) — 1 case
Sieben v. Sieben (1982) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-215(a) — 47 cases
Thompson v. State (2011) kan “60-1507, K.S.A. 60-215, and Supreme Court Rule 183 (2010 Kan.”
Pabst v. State (2008) kan “In a reply and a separate motion to strike, Pabst argued that, under K.S.A. 60-215, he had the right to amend his motion as a matter of course at any time prior to the State filing a responsive pleading; that the claims made in both pleadings were of the same type, permitting…”
King v. Pimentel (1995) kanctapp “With regard to the other defendants, the question is whether a party responding to an amended pleading as required by K.S.A. 60-215(a) may include additional claims or defenses the party failed to include in an earlier pleading if those additional claims or defenses do not…”
Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Board of Regents (2001) kanctapp “” It has been theorized that “[t]he provisions of K.S.A. 60-215 regarding amendment of pleading are not applicable: the KJRA does not contain provisions for substantial compli *41 anee similar to those found in Chapter 60.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan “In the alternative, he argues that if an administrator can be appointed after the 2-year anniversary date, a formal amendment under K.S.A. 60-215 is required to properly name the actual administrator as defendant.”
— K.S.A. § 60-215(a)(1) — 1 case
Scott v. Ewing (2019) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(a)(1)(A) — 1 case
E.H. v. Kansas Dept. for Children and Families (2021) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(a)(2) — 10 cases
Hajda v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority (2015) kanctapp
Luckett v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review (2019) kanctapp
Scott v. Ewing (2019) kanctapp
Jefferies v. United Rotary Brush Corp. (2022) kanctapp
Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(b) — 21 cases
McDaniel v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL, INC. (2011) kanctapp “The amendment of pleadings in Kansas is governed by K.S.A. 60-215. The McDaniels argue that based upon K.”
Newell v. Krause (1986) kan
Bergstrom v. Noah (1999) kan
Anderson v. Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc. (1991) kan
Butler Ex Rel. Commerce Bank, N.A. v. HCA Health Services of Kansas, Inc. (1999) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(b)(2) — 3 cases
Douglas Landscape & Design, L.L.C. v. Miles (2015) kanctapp
Jennings v. Shauck (2024) kan
State v. Gaines (2019) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c) — 52 cases
Martindale v. Tenny (1992) kan “, d/b/a Geiger Ready-Mix Concrete Company, for the Geiger Ready-Mix Company, under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-215(a) and (c). The trial court sustained the plaintiff’s motion, permitting her to amend her original petition by changing the name of the defendant as requested.”
Thompson v. State (2011) kan “60-1507, K.S.A. 60-215, and Supreme Court Rule 183 (2010 Kan.”
Pedro v. Armour Swift-Eckrich (2000) ksd “Both provisions, however, contain the same mistaken identity requirement: “the party to be brought in by amendment: .”
Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Board of Regents (2001) kanctapp “” It has been theorized that “[t]he provisions of K.S.A. 60-215 regarding amendment of pleading are not applicable: the KJRA does not contain provisions for substantial compli *41 anee similar to those found in Chapter 60.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan “In the alternative, he argues that if an administrator can be appointed after the 2-year anniversary date, a formal amendment under K.S.A. 60-215 is required to properly name the actual administrator as defendant.”
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(1) — 2 cases
Thompson v. State (2011) kan “60-1507, K.S.A. 60-215, and Supreme Court Rule 183 (2010 Kan.”
Housh v. Hay (2006) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(2) — 12 cases
Martindale v. Tenny (1992) kan “, d/b/a Geiger Ready-Mix Concrete Company, for the Geiger Ready-Mix Company, under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-215(a) and (c). The trial court sustained the plaintiff’s motion, permitting her to amend her original petition by changing the name of the defendant as requested.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar (2007) kan “In the alternative, he argues that if an administrator can be appointed after the 2-year anniversary date, a formal amendment under K.S.A. 60-215 is required to properly name the actual administrator as defendant.”
Pedro v. Armour Swift-Eckrich (2000) ksd “Both provisions, however, contain the same mistaken identity requirement: “the party to be brought in by amendment: .”
LOUISBURG BLDG. & DEV'T CO. v. Albright (2011) kanctapp
Hajda v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority (2015) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(2)(A) — 1 case
Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Board of Regents (2001) kanctapp “” It has been theorized that “[t]he provisions of K.S.A. 60-215 regarding amendment of pleading are not applicable: the KJRA does not contain provisions for substantial compli *41 anee similar to those found in Chapter 60.”
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(2)(B) — 1 case
Pittsburg State University v. Kansas Board of Regents (2001) kanctapp “” It has been theorized that “[t]he provisions of K.S.A. 60-215 regarding amendment of pleading are not applicable: the KJRA does not contain provisions for substantial compli *41 anee similar to those found in Chapter 60.”
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(3) — 4 cases
LOUISBURG BLDG. & DEV'T CO. v. Albright (2011) kanctapp
Jefferies v. United Rotary Brush Corp. (2022) kanctapp
Baker v. Hayden (2020) kanctapp
Circle Bear v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Co./Kansas City, KS (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
Osborn v. Kansas Dept. for Children and Families (2022) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(3)(B) — 1 case
Jefferies v. United Rotary Brush Corp. (2022) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(c)(l) — 4 cases
Thompson v. State (2011) kan “60-1507, K.S.A. 60-215, and Supreme Court Rule 183 (2010 Kan.”
Estate of Belden v. Brown County (2011) kanctapp “But K.S.A. 60-215 does not apply here. It pertains to amendments to pleadings in a pending suit.”
Smith v. Graham (2006) kan
Rice v. State (2010) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(e) — 1 case
Brooks v. Isinghood (2003) wva
— K.S.A. § 60-215(fe) — 1 case
Kiser v. Gilmore (1978) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-215(h) — 2 cases
Kiser v. Gilmore (1978) kanctapp
Temmen v. Kent-Brown Chevrolet Co. (1980) kan
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.