Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-236 (2026)

Requests for admission

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-236. Requests for admission. (a) Availability, scope and procedure. (1) Availability and scope. A party may serve on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of process on that party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of K.S.A. 60-226, and amendments thereto, relating to:

(A) Facts, the application of law to fact or opinions about either; and

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.

(2) Form; copy of a document. Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.

(3) Time to respond; effect of not responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serve on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after being served with process. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under K.S.A. 60-229, and amendments thereto, or be ordered by the court.

(4) Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

(5) Objections. The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.

(6) Motion regarding the sufficiency of an answer or objection. The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this section, the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified time before trial. The provisions of subsection (a)(5) of K.S.A. 60-237, and amendments thereto, apply to an award of expenses.

(b) Effective of an admission; withdrawing or amending it. A matter admitted under this section is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to subsection (e) of K.S.A. 60-216, and amendments thereto, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits. An admission under this section is not an admission for any other purposes and cannot be used against the party in any other proceeding.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-236; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 20, 1972; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 19; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 105; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Simpson v. City of Topeka, 383 P.3d 165 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simpson v. City of Topeka, 383 P.3d 165 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “But in response to requests for admission from the City, propounded under K.S.A. 60-236, each plaintiff admitted he or she is a "transferred employee" within the meaning of the transfer contracts between the City and the County.”

Underhill v. Thompson, 158 P.3d 987 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Underhill argues that because the reply was untimely, K.S.A. 60-236(a) requires the admissions to be deemed admitted.”

Yunghans v. O'TOOLE, 581 P.2d 393 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 5× “On October 5, 1974, appellant filed several requests for admissions which were not answered by appellee within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 60-236. On November 25, 1974, appellant moved for summary judgment on certain issues, arguing the requests must be taken as true due to…”

Hawley v. Kansas Dep't of Agric., 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006). “3d 608 (2002) (due to lack of any authority as found in K.S.A. 60-236, under K.S.A. 61-3101 court has no power to allow admission to be amended or withdrawn; because responses were late they were “deemed admitted”).”

Divine v. Groshong, 679 P.2d 700 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 60-236; Form 25, contained in the Appendix of Forms, Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annot.”

Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc., 4 P.3d 1149 (Kan. 2000). “For example, parties against whom claims are made are now obligated to make admissions if requested under K.S.A. 60-236 and be subject to court-ordered sanctions as allowed by K.”

Ray v. State High. Comm'n, 410 P.2d 278 (Kan. 1966). · cites it 2× “It is the position of the State Highway Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) that upon the pleadings and admitted facts (secured by the Commission pursuant to K.S.A. 60-236) concerning which there is no dispute, the trial court properly sustained the motion for…”

Miner v. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 841 P.2d 1093 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “33, 34, and 35 in spite of her failure to respond to the admissions because it is within the discretion of the trial court, under K.S.A. 60-236(b), to permit a withdrawal or amendment to the admissions where the party who obtained the admission has not proved the withdrawal or…”

Schuh v. Educ. Reading Servs. of Kansas, Inc., 626 P.2d 1219 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “60-234 and a request for admissions, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-236. The trial court denied the requests.”

Miller v. Sirloin Stockade, 578 P.2d 247 (Kan. 1978). “K.S.A. 60-236, a part of our rules of civil procedure, sets forth the procedure whereby one party may request admissions of another; .”

In Re Coder, 35 P.3d 853 (Kan. 2001). “Additionally, die court denied the defendant’s request to wididraw admissions made by virtue of dieir lack of response, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-236. “20. The named defendants took interlocutory appeals to the Kansas Court of Appeals.”

Berkshire Aircraft, Inc. v. AEC Leasing Co., 84 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “” The Chapter 60 counterpart, K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-236(a), provides for judicial discretion not found in Chapter 61.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-236(a) — 4 cases

Underhill v. Thompson, 158 P.3d 987 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Underhill argues that because the reply was untimely, K.S.A. 60-236(a) requires the admissions to be deemed admitted.”

Berkshire Aircraft, Inc. v. AEC Leasing Co., 84 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “” The Chapter 60 counterpart, K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-236(a), provides for judicial discretion not found in Chapter 61.”

State v. Hohman, 686 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1984).

Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-236(a)(1) — 1 case

Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-236(a)(3) — 1 case

Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-236(b) — 4 cases

Simpson v. City of Topeka, 383 P.3d 165 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). “But in response to requests for admission from the City, propounded under K.S.A. 60-236, each plaintiff admitted he or she is a "transferred employee" within the meaning of the transfer contracts between the City and the County.”

Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-236(o) — 1 case

Yunghans v. O'TOOLE, 581 P.2d 393 (Kan. 1978). “On October 5, 1974, appellant filed several requests for admissions which were not answered by appellee within 30 days as required by K.S.A. 60-236. On November 25, 1974, appellant moved for summary judgment on certain issues, arguing the requests must be taken as true due to…”

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.