K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-232 (2026)

Use of depositions in court proceedings

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

60-232. Use of depositions in court proceedings. (a) Using depositions. (1) In general. At a hearing or trial all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions:

(A) The party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it;

(B) it is used to the extent it would be admissible under the rules of evidence if the deponent were present and testifying; and

(C) the use is allowed by subsections (a)(2) through (a)(8).

(2) Impeachment and other uses. Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the rules of evidence.

(3) Deposition of party, agent or designee. An adverse party may use for any purpose that deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent or designee under subsection (b)(6) of K.S.A. 60-230 or subsection (a)(4) of K.S.A. 60-231, and amendments thereto.

(4) Unavailable witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds:

(A) That the witness is dead;

(B) that the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing or trial, or is outside this state, unless it appears that the witness' absence was procured by the party offering the deposition;

(C) that the witness cannot attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity or imprisonment;

(D) that the party offering the deposition could not procure the witness' attendance by subpoena; or

(E) on motion and notice, that exceptional circumstances make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court, to permit the deposition to be used.

(5) Limitations on use. A deposition taken without leave of court pursuant to a notice under subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii) of K.S.A. 60-230, and amendments thereto, must not be used against a party who shows that, when served with the notice, it could not, despite diligent efforts, obtain an attorney to represent it at the deposition.

(6) Using part of a deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself introduce any other parts.

(7) Substituting a party. Substituting a party under K.S.A. 60-225, and amendments thereto, does not affect the right to use a deposition previously taken.

(8) Deposition taken in an earlier action. A deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal- or state-court action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, to the same extent as if taken in the later action. A deposition previously taken may also be used as allowed by the rules of evidence.

(b) Objections to admissibility. Subject to subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-228, and amendments thereto, and subsection (d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing or trial to the admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying.

(c) Form of presentation. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must provide a transcript of the entire deposition from which the offered portions were taken, but may provide the court with the testimony in nontranscript form as well. On any party's request, deposition testimony offered in a jury trial for any purpose other than impeachment must be presented in nontranscript form, if available, unless the court, for good cause, orders otherwise.

(d) Waiver of objections. (1) To the notice. An objection to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party giving the notice.

(2) To the officer's qualification. An objection based on disqualification of the officer before whom a deposition is to be taken is waived if not made:

(A) Before the deposition begins; or

(B) promptly after the basis for disqualification becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.

(3) To the taking of the deposition. (A) Objection to competence, relevance or materiality. An objection to a deponent's competence, or to the competence, relevance or materiality of testimony, is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.

(B) Objection to an error or irregularity. An objection to an error or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if:

(i) It relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party's conduct or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and

(ii) it is not timely made during the deposition.

(C) Objection to a written question. An objection to the form of a written question under K.S.A. 60-231, and amendments thereto, is waived if not served in writing on the party submitting the question within the time for serving responsive questions or, if the question is a recross-question, with seven days after being served with it.

(4) To completing and returning the deposition. An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony, or prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, sent or otherwise dealt with the deposition, is waived unless a motion to suppress is made promptly after the error or irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-232; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 20, 1972; L. 1987, ch. 218, § 4; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 15; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 101; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1971–2012 · leading case: State v. Corbett, 130 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Corbett, 130 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “60-230(e) (deponent’s signature), K.S.A. 60-232(a) (use of deposition only against a party present or represented at the deposition), K.”
Timsah Ex Rel. Timsah v. Gen. Motors Corp., 591 P.2d 154 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-232( a )(2) indicates that the deposition of a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.”
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan, 274 P.3d 609 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 3× “Heavey relied in part on Larva’s report in his valuation of the subject property, and landowner intended to admit Heavey’s and Larva’s reports during Sar-off s testimony. Landowner argues the hearsay exception in K.”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 12× “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 2× “For support, the defendant cites K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-232(b) for the proposition that a party can object at trial to the admissibility of any deposition.”
In Re the Est. of Broderick, 191 P.3d 284 (Kan. 2008). “” She points out that K.S.A. 60-232 allows deposition testimony to be read at trial.”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “§ 60-232 (1979). The clear words of 60-232(a) and (b) provide that, subject to valid objections as to admissibility, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof if there…”
Henderson v. Hassur, 594 P.2d 650 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 60-232(a)(2) provides: “The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or a person designated under K.”
Schaeffer v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 608 P.2d 1309 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-232 allows depositions to be introduced at trial and reads in part as follows: “60-232.”
Wilson v. Am. Fid. Ins., 625 P.2d 1117 (Kan. 1981). “60-231 and subsection (d) of K.S.A. 60-232, except that any party desiring to take a deposition shall first file with the court, and serve on all other parties to the action, a motion that the taking of such deposition be allowed due to the existence of at least one (1) of the…”
Ballhorst v. Hahner-Foreman-Cale, Inc., 484 P.2d 38 (Kan. 1971). · cites it 2× “may then be used as fully as though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under section 60-232 (d) the judge holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.”
State v. Staab, 635 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1981). ““If the deposition is not signed by the witness, or not returned within the time limitation herein provided, the officer shall sign it, or a copy thereof, and state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the refusal to…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a) — 4 cases
State v. Corbett, 130 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2006). “60-230(e) (deponent’s signature), K.S.A. 60-232(a) (use of deposition only against a party present or represented at the deposition), K.”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “§ 60-232 (1979). The clear words of 60-232(a) and (b) provide that, subject to valid objections as to admissibility, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof if there…”
Thoren v. Lawrence Mem'l Hosp., 929 P.2d 815 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(2) — 3 cases
Timsah Ex Rel. Timsah v. Gen. Motors Corp., 591 P.2d 154 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 60-232( a )(2) indicates that the deposition of a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.”
Henderson v. Hassur, 594 P.2d 650 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 60-232(a)(2) provides: “The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or a person designated under K.”
In Re the Adoption of N.A.P., 930 P.2d 609 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(3) — 2 cases
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “§ 60-232 (1979). The clear words of 60-232(a) and (b) provide that, subject to valid objections as to admissibility, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof if there…”
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(3)(A) — 1 case
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(3)(B) — 4 cases
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan, 274 P.3d 609 (Kan. 2012). “Heavey relied in part on Larva’s report in his valuation of the subject property, and landowner intended to admit Heavey’s and Larva’s reports during Sar-off s testimony. Landowner argues the hearsay exception in K.”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “§ 60-232 (1979). The clear words of 60-232(a) and (b) provide that, subject to valid objections as to admissibility, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof if there…”
Rodreick v. Est. of Wikoff, 31 P.3d 307 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(3)(E) — 2 cases
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989). “” Eferakeya argued that his deposition should have been introduced in evidence under K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-232(a)(3)(B) and (E).”
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “§ 60-232 (1979). The clear words of 60-232(a) and (b) provide that, subject to valid objections as to admissibility, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof if there…”
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(3)(b) — 1 case
Rodreick v. Est. of Wikoff, 31 P.3d 307 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(a)(l) — 2 cases
Summers v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 757 P.2d 1255 (Kan. 1988).
Thoren v. Lawrence Mem'l Hosp., 929 P.2d 815 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(b) — 1 case
State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993). “For support, the defendant cites K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-232(b) for the proposition that a party can object at trial to the admissibility of any deposition.”
— K.S.A. § 60-232(d)(3)(B) — 1 case
Wecker v. Amend, 918 P.2d 658 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 60-232(d)(4) — 1 case
State v. Staab, 635 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1981). ““If the deposition is not signed by the witness, or not returned within the time limitation herein provided, the officer shall sign it, or a copy thereof, and state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the refusal to…”
— K.S.A. § 60-232(o)(4) — 1 case
State v. Gilley, 615 P.2d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
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.