Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-223 (2026)

Class actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-223. Class actions. (a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(b) Types of class actions. A class action may be maintained if the prerequisites of subsection (a) are satisfied and if:

(1) Prosecuting separate actions by or against individual members would create a risk of: (A) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) The class member's interest in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

(c) Certification order; notice to class members; judgment; issues classes; subclasses. (1) Certification order. (A) Time to issue. At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.

(B) Defining the class; appointing class counsel. An order that certifies a class action must define the class and the class claims, issues or defenses, and must appoint class counsel under subsection (g).

(C) Altering or amending the order. An order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment.

(2) Notice. (A) For subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) classes. For any class certified under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.

(B) For subsection (b)(3) classes. For any class certified under subsection (b)(3), the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:

(i) The nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

(iii) the class claims, issues or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires;

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and

(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under subsection (c)(3).

(3) Judgment. Whether or not favorable to the class, the judgment in a class action must:

(A) In an action maintained as a class action under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2), include and describe those whom the court finds to be class members; and

(B) in an action maintained as a class action under subsection (b)(3), include and specify or describe those to whom the notice provided in subsection (c)(2) was directed, who have not requested exclusion, and whom the court finds to be class members.

(4) Particular issues. When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.

(5) Subclasses. When appropriate, a class may be divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class under this section.

(d) Conducting the action. (1) In general. In conducting an action under this section, the court may issue orders that:

(A) Determine the course of proceedings or prescribe measures to prevent undue repetition or complication in presenting evidence or argument;

(B) require, to protect class members and fairly conduct the action, giving appropriate notice to some or all class members of:

(i) Any step in the action;

(ii) the proposed extent of the judgment; or

(iii) the members' opportunity to signify whether they consider the representation fair and adequate, to intervene and present claims or defenses, or to otherwise come into the action;

(C) impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors;

(D) require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons and that the action proceed accordingly; or

(E) deal with similar procedural matters.

(2) Combining and amending orders. An order under subsection (d)(1) may be altered or amended from time to time and may be combined with an order under K.S.A. 60-216, and amendments thereto.

(e) Settlement, voluntary dismissal or compromise. The claims, issues or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed or compromised only with the court's approval. The following procedures apply to a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal or compromise:

(1) The court must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal;

(2) if the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable and adequate;

(3) the parties seeking approval must file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the proposal;

(4) if the class action was previously certified under subsection (b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion, but did not do so; and

(5) any class member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval under this subsection (e); the objection may be withdrawn only with the court's approval.

(f) Appeals. The court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class action certification under this section if application is made to the court within 14 days after the order is entered. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.

(g) Class counsel. (1) Appointing class counsel. Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel. In appointing class counsel, the court:

(A) Must consider:

(i) The work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;

(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation and the types of claims asserted in the action;

(iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;

(B) may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class;

(C) may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney's fees and nontaxable costs;

(D) may include in the appointing order provisions about the award of attorney's fees or nontaxable costs under subsection (h); and

(E) may make further orders in connection with the appointment.

(2) Standard for appointing class counsel. When one applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the court may appoint that applicant only if the applicant is adequate under subsection (g)(1) and (g)(4). If more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the court must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.

(3) Interim counsel. The court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.

(4) Duty of class counsel. Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

(h) Attorney's fees and nontaxable costs. In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement. The following procedures apply:

(1) A claim for an award must be made by motion, subject to the provisions of this subsection, at a time the court sets. Notice of the motion must be served on all parties and, for motions by class counsel, directed to class members in a reasonable manner;

(2) a class member, or a party from whom payment is sought, may object to the motion;

(3) the court may hold a hearing and must find the facts and state its legal conclusions under subsection (a) of K.S.A. 60-252, and amendments thereto; and

(4) the court may refer issues related to the amount of the award to a special master as provided in K.S.A. 60-253, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-223; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1980, ch. 171, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 10; L. 2004, ch. 21, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 90; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · leading case: Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985).
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985). · cites it 10× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-223 et seq. (1983). The class as certified was comprised of 33,000 royalty owners who had royalties suspended by petitioner.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 19× “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 18× “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 16× “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 14× “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Our Supreme Court has further commented on this subject: " ‘Class actions are designed to provide an “economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits” while simultaneously “protecting defendants from inconsistent obligations and the due process rights of absentee class…”
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 20× “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “Class actions are governed by K.S.A. 60-223, which was modeled after and has traditionally been interpreted like Fed.”
Sternberger v. Marathon Oil Co., 894 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 7× “CERTIFYING THE CLASS K.S.A. 60-223(a) permits an action to be maintained as a class action *343 “only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the…”
Coulter v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 292 P.3d 289 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 9× “Generally, when a discretionary decision is made within the legal standards and takes the proper factors into account in the proper way, the decision is protected even if the reviewing court might think it unwise.”
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 234 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “Mobil contends the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class because it failed to rigorously analyze the requirements of K.S.A. 60-223, that choice-of-law issues and variations in the circumstances surrounding execution of individual leases defeat the…”
Ross-Williams v. Bennett, 419 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Compare K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-223 with K.S.A. 2017 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(1) — 1 case
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(a) — 16 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
Sternberger v. Marathon Oil Co., 894 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1995). “CERTIFYING THE CLASS K.S.A. 60-223(a) permits an action to be maintained as a class action *343 “only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the…”
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Our Supreme Court has further commented on this subject: " ‘Class actions are designed to provide an “economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits” while simultaneously “protecting defendants from inconsistent obligations and the due process rights of absentee class…”
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(a)(2) — 6 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
Chamberlain v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 137 P.3d 1081 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
Gray v. Amoco Prod. Co., 564 P.2d 579 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977).
Wortman v. Sun Oil Co., 690 P.2d 385 (Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(a)(3) — 1 case
Connolly v. Frobenius, 574 P.2d 971 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(a)(4) — 3 cases
Coulter v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 292 P.3d 289 (Kan. 2013). “Generally, when a discretionary decision is made within the legal standards and takes the proper factors into account in the proper way, the decision is protected even if the reviewing court might think it unwise.”
Connolly v. Frobenius, 574 P.2d 971 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
Cooper Clark Found. v. Oxy USA (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(a)(l) — 1 case
Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc., 284 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b) — 4 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 234 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Mobil contends the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class because it failed to rigorously analyze the requirements of K.S.A. 60-223, that choice-of-law issues and variations in the circumstances surrounding execution of individual leases defeat the…”
Cooper Clark Found. v. Oxy USA (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(1) — 1 case
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(2) — 1 case
Americare Props., Inc. v. Whiteman, 891 P.2d 336 (Kan. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(3) — 9 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012). “Class actions are governed by K.S.A. 60-223, which was modeled after and has traditionally been interpreted like Fed.”
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Our Supreme Court has further commented on this subject: " ‘Class actions are designed to provide an “economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits” while simultaneously “protecting defendants from inconsistent obligations and the due process rights of absentee class…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(l) — 2 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
Gigot v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 737 P.2d 18 (Kan. 1987).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(b)(l)(A) — 2 cases
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c) — 3 cases
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Maish, 908 P.2d 1329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(2) — 5 cases
Sternberger v. Marathon Oil Co., 894 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1995). “CERTIFYING THE CLASS K.S.A. 60-223(a) permits an action to be maintained as a class action *343 “only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the…”
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 679 P.2d 1159 (Kan. 1984).
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Our Supreme Court has further commented on this subject: " ‘Class actions are designed to provide an “economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits” while simultaneously “protecting defendants from inconsistent obligations and the due process rights of absentee class…”
Country Club Home, Inc. v. Harder, 620 P.2d 1140 (Kan. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(2)(A) — 1 case
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(2)(B)(v) — 1 case
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(3)(B) — 1 case
Sternberger v. Marathon Oil Co., 894 P.2d 788 (Kan. 1995). “CERTIFYING THE CLASS K.S.A. 60-223(a) permits an action to be maintained as a class action *343 “only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(l) — 3 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004). “The defendants allege that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the prerequisites established by K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-223 were satisfied. More specifically, defendants allege that the trial court erred in not fully considering disputes regarding facts…”
Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc., 284 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2012).
Country Club Home, Inc. v. Harder, 620 P.2d 1140 (Kan. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(l)(B) — 1 case
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(c)(l)(C) — 1 case
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Our Supreme Court has further commented on this subject: " ‘Class actions are designed to provide an “economical means for disposing of similar lawsuits” while simultaneously “protecting defendants from inconsistent obligations and the due process rights of absentee class…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(d)(2) — 1 case
Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 567 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1977). “Baker granted Shutts’ motion for a class order under K.S.A. 60-223 and ordered notice to be given to all gas royalty owners in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, regardless of whether such leases covered land in Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma.”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(e) — 3 cases
Ross-Williams v. Bennett, 419 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Compare K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-223 with K.S.A. 2017 Supp.”
Coulter v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 292 P.3d 289 (Kan. 2013). “Generally, when a discretionary decision is made within the legal standards and takes the proper factors into account in the proper way, the decision is protected even if the reviewing court might think it unwise.”
Freebird, Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co., 264 P.3d 500 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(f) — 4 cases
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 144 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2006). “In the first appeal, this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of whether the requested class should be certified, because the trial court had failed to fully determine factual issues relating to the prerequisites for class certification and to…”
Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Grp., Inc., 263 P.3d 767 (Kan. 2011). “” K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. The litigation in the present case was initiated under the TCPA, 47 U.”
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 234 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Mobil contends the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class because it failed to rigorously analyze the requirements of K.S.A. 60-223, that choice-of-law issues and variations in the circumstances surrounding execution of individual leases defeat the…”
Anderson Off. Supply, Inc. v. Advanced Med. Assocs., P.A., 273 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “After that, Anderson asked the court for certification of the class under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-223. Both parties agree this case was filed after Anderson’s counsel, while prosecuting another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case involving Business To Business, obtained Business…”
— K.S.A. § 60-223(fo)(2) — 1 case
Steele v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins., 602 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1979).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(fo)(l) — 1 case
Brueck v. Krings, 638 P.2d 904 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 60-223(h) — 1 case
Ross-Williams v. Bennett, 419 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “Compare K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-223 with K.S.A. 2017 Supp.”
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.