60-220.
Permissive joinder of parties.
(a)
Persons who may join or be joined.
(1)
Plaintiffs.
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
(2)
Defendants.
Persons may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) Any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
(3)
Extent of relief.
Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant need be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded. The court may grant judgment to one or more plaintiffs according to their rights, and against one or more defendants according to their liabilities.
(b)
Protective measures.
The court may issue orders, including an order for separate trials, to protect a party against embarrassment, delay, expense or other prejudice that arises from including a person against whom the party asserts no claim and who asserts no claim against the party.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-220; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 87; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 221 P.3d 1130 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 4× “60-220(a) provides in relevant part for permissive joinder of parties as plaintiffs "if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any…”
Haysville U.S.D. No. 261 v. GAF Corp., 666 P.2d 192 (Kan. 1983).
“” The school district did not amend its petition to include a claim against the added defendants on the fault theory as allowed by K.S.A. 60-220(a), which states in part: “A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded.”
McHorse v. Eaks, 7 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
“Koontz contends permissive joinder under K.S.A. 60-220 is the appropriate statute since it refers to rights “arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.”
— K.S.A. § 60-220(a) — 2 cases
Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 221 P.3d 1130 (Kan. 2009).
“60-220(a) provides in relevant part for permissive joinder of parties as plaintiffs "if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any…”
Haysville U.S.D. No. 261 v. GAF Corp., 666 P.2d 192 (Kan. 1983).
“” The school district did not amend its petition to include a claim against the added defendants on the fault theory as allowed by K.S.A. 60-220(a), which states in part: “A plaintiff or defendant need not be interested in obtaining or defending against all the relief demanded.”
— K.S.A. § 60-220(a)(1) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 60-220(b) — 1 case
Unruh v. Purina Mills, LLC, 221 P.3d 1130 (Kan. 2009).
“60-220(a) provides in relevant part for permissive joinder of parties as plaintiffs "if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any…”
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.