Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-240 (2026)

Scheduling cases for trial; continuances

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-240. Scheduling cases for trial; continuances. (a) Scheduling cases for trial. Each district court must provide by rule for scheduling trials. The court must give priority to actions entitled to priority by law.

(b) Continuances. For good cause, the court may continue an action at any stage of the proceedings on just terms. When a continuance is granted due to the absence of evidence, it must be at the cost of the party requesting the continuance, unless the court orders otherwise.

(c) Motion for continuance based on absence of material witness, document, thing or other evidence; affidavit or declaration. (1) Affidavit or declaration in support of motions. The court need not entertain a motion for a continuance based on the absence of a material witness, document, thing or other evidence unless supported by an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto.

(A) An affidavit or declaration in support of a motion for a continuance based on the absence of a material witness must state:

(i) The name of the witness, and, if known, the witness' residence;

(ii) the substance of the witness' expected testimony and the basis for the expectation;

(iii) that the affiant or declarant believes the statements in the affidavit or declaration to be true; and

(iv) the efforts that have been made to procure the witness' attendance or deposition.

(B) An affidavit or declaration in support of a motion for a continuance based on the absence of a material document, thing or other evidence must contain similar statements, with appropriate modifications.

(2) Objections. A party objecting to a continuance may not contradict the statement of the substance of the absent witness' expected testimony or the substance of the absent document, thing or other evidence, but may contradict any other statement in the affidavit or declaration.

(3) Granting or denying the motion. The court may deny the motion if the adverse party admits that the absent witness would, if present, testify as stated in the affidavit or declaration, and agrees that the affidavit or declaration be received as evidence at the trial and considered as though the witness were present and so testified. The granting or denial of a continuance is discretionary in all cases, regardless of compliance with the provisions of this subsection.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-240; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 109; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 161 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 161 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “This Pretrial Order shall govern the future course of this matter, and shall only be altered by future order of the Court.”

State v. Jenkins, 898 P.2d 1121 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “Trigg also offered an affidavit in accordance with K.S.A. 60-240(c) which stated that, because of White’s employment as a circuit minister and salesman, she had been unable to contact him.”

Cheek v. Hird, 675 P.2d 935 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Here, the motion was not supported by an affidavit stating the name of the expert witness, the witness’ residence, if known, a statement of the witness’ expected testimony, and a statement that the affiant believes it to be true as required by K.S.A. 60-240(c). Having failed to…”

Sec. Nat'l Bank v. City of Olathe, 589 P.2d 589 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 2× “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, we must assume that appellant was substantially informed as to the substance of the expert testimony, and that the experts were fully and fairly cross-examined by counsel.”

State Ex Rel. Miller v. Richardson, 623 P.2d 1317 (Kan. 1981). “K.S.A. 60-240(a) provides: “Assignment of cases for trial.”

State v. Jones, 601 P.2d 1135 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 60-240(fe) provides in part: “The court may for good cause shown continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon such terms as may be just.”

Pac. Indem. Co. v. Berge, 473 P.2d 48 (Kan. 1970). “The assignment of cases for trial and continuance thereof are governed by K.S.A. 60-240. Subsection ( b ) authorizes the granting of a continuance for good cause shown at any stage of the proceedings.”

Walker v. REGEHR, 202 P.3d 712 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Under K.S.A. 60-240(b), “[t]he court may for good cause shown continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon such terms as may be just.”

Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “The taking of plaintiffs deposition and the date of trial had already been postponed due to plaintiff s absence.”

Berkshire Aircraft, Inc. v. AEC Leasing Co., 84 P.3d 608 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “Notably absent from Chapter 61 is a provision similar to that found in Chapter 60 allowing for withdrawal or amendment of admissions.”

Scott v. Keyse, 438 P.2d 112 (Kan. 1968). · cites it 2× “The effect is to remove whatever mandatory direction was contained in former statutes pertaining to assignment of actions to the trial calendar. This function has always been largely controlled by local court rule and the policy is confirmed by this subsection.”

State v. George, 65 P.3d 1060 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “After confirming that all witnesses were available for the December dates, the State filed a motion for continuance due to the absence of a material witness and attached an affidavit as required by K.S.A. 60-240(c) in support thereof. The affidavit explained the anticipated…”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-240(a) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Miller v. Richardson, 623 P.2d 1317 (Kan. 1981). “K.S.A. 60-240(a) provides: “Assignment of cases for trial.”

— K.S.A. § 60-240(b) — 12 cases

Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 161 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2007). “This Pretrial Order shall govern the future course of this matter, and shall only be altered by future order of the Court.”

Sec. Nat'l Bank v. City of Olathe, 589 P.2d 589 (Kan. 1979). “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, we must assume that appellant was substantially informed as to the substance of the expert testimony, and that the experts were fully and fairly cross-examined by counsel.”

R.C. v. S.M. (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

In re Marriage of Bailey (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 60-240(c) — 4 cases

State v. Jenkins, 898 P.2d 1121 (Kan. 1995). “Trigg also offered an affidavit in accordance with K.S.A. 60-240(c) which stated that, because of White’s employment as a circuit minister and salesman, she had been unable to contact him.”

Cheek v. Hird, 675 P.2d 935 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). “Here, the motion was not supported by an affidavit stating the name of the expert witness, the witness’ residence, if known, a statement of the witness’ expected testimony, and a statement that the affiant believes it to be true as required by K.S.A. 60-240(c). Having failed to…”

Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 766 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “The taking of plaintiffs deposition and the date of trial had already been postponed due to plaintiff s absence.”

— K.S.A. § 60-240(c)(1) — 1 case

Clark v. RHF 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-240(c)(3) — 4 cases

Conestoga Titleholder v. Wilson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

The Woodmont Co. v. West Ridge Pizza Pub (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

In re Est. of Raney (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

A.K. v. Heit (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

— K.S.A. § 60-240(c)(A)(ii) — 1 case

In re Est. of James (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

— K.S.A. § 60-240(c)(B)(3) — 1 case

R.C. v. S.M. (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-240(fe) — 1 case

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.