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

K.S.A. § 60-241 (2026)

Dismissal of actions

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

60-241. Dismissal of actions. (a) Voluntary dismissal. (1) By the plaintiff. (A) Without a court order. Subject to subsection (e) of K.S.A. 60-223, 60-223a and 60-223b, and amendments thereto, and any applicable state statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

(i) A notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. When the dismissal is by stipulation, the clerk of the court must enter an order of dismissal as a matter of course.

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

(2) By court order; effect. Except as provided in paragraph (1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant's objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

(b) Involuntary dismissal; effect; notice. (1) If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with this chapter or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not under this section, except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue or failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219, and amendments thereto, operates as an adjudication on the merits.

(2) On its own, the court may dismiss a case without prejudice for lack of prosecution, but only after notice to counsel of record, not less than 14 days prior to the intended dismissal, that an order of dismissal will be entered unless cause is shown for not doing so.

(c) Dismissing a counterclaim, crossclaim or third-party claim. This section applies to a dismissal of any counterclaim, crossclaim or third-party claim. A claimant's voluntary dismissal under subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) must be made:

(1) Before a responsive pleading is served; or

(2) if there is no responsive pleading, before evidence is introduced at a hearing or trial.

(d) Costs of a previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court:

(1) May order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and

(2) may stay proceedings until the plaintiff has complied.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-241; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1980, ch. 171, § 2; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 22; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 110; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 5× “The procedure for a plaintiff to dismiss a limited action is stated in K.S.A. 60-241, which is incorporated into the Code by reference in K.”
Crockett v. Medicalodges, Inc., 799 P.2d 1022 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 9× “The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Medicalodges on the theory that two prior filings were involuntarily dismissed and thus barred by K.S.A. 60-241 and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.”
Smith v. State, 924 P.2d 662 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “Under these circumstances, we have, in the past, relied upon the federal court’s interpretation of Rule 41(a) to guide us in interpreting K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1). See 20 Kan. App. 2d at 574 .”
Baker v. R. D. Andersen Constr. Co., 644 P.2d 1354 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 60-241( b ) provides in part as follows: "After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, without waiving the defendant's right to offer evidence in the event the…”
Wirt v. Esrey, 662 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 4× “49,941 operated as an adjudication “on the merits” within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-241 and as such it was conclusive as to any other action or proceeding involving the same cause of action, subject only to the right to have the same vacated or set aside in a proper proceeding.”
Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 770 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 3× “61,647 (4) What is the proper standard of review for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-241(b)? (5) Whether the trial court erred: (a) in finding that KBS did not establish a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance; (b) in finding that the settlement agreement…”
Handy v. Reed, 81 P.3d 450 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “Reed’s argument that because he had never been served in Handy I at the time of the dismissal that K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1) rather than (a)(2) applies and thus the dismissal would be automatic, preventing the trial court from having the power to set terms and conditions upon which…”
Holick v. Burkhart, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “On May 7, 2015, Defendant filed a 3-page motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-241(a), arguing the temporary PFS order had expired by operation of law no later than March 7, 2015, such that there "is no actual controversy before the court," and that…”
Namelo v. Broyles, 103 P.3d 486 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× ““(2) The judge may on the judge’s own motion cause a case to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, but only after directing the clerk to notify counsel of record not less than 10 days in advance of such intended dismissal, that an order of dismissal will be…”
Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co., LLC, 161 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “60-202 identifies the parties to an action as follows: "There shall be but one form of action to be known as `civil action,' in which the party complaining shall be designated `plaintiff' and the adverse party `defendant.'" K.S.A. 60-202 does not counteract or contravene the…”
Clanton v. Estivo, 988 P.2d 254 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “60-518 would allow the proposed third action to be filed were premature and disputing Clanton’s interpretation of the two-dismissal rule of K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 60-241. Clanton’s motion to dismiss was heard on June 18, 1998.”
Smith v. Graham, 147 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 3× “Unless otherwise specified, a dismissal under K.S.A. 60-241(a)(2) is without prejudice, leaving a plaintiff with the ability to file another lawsuit.”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-241(2) — 1 case
Peterson v. Garney Constr. Co., 584 P.2d 1269 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(6) — 1 case
Wirt v. Esrey, 662 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1983). “49,941 operated as an adjudication “on the merits” within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-241 and as such it was conclusive as to any other action or proceeding involving the same cause of action, subject only to the right to have the same vacated or set aside in a proper proceeding.”
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a) — 8 cases
Holick v. Burkhart, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (D. Kan. 2019). “On May 7, 2015, Defendant filed a 3-page motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-241(a), arguing the temporary PFS order had expired by operation of law no later than March 7, 2015, such that there "is no actual controversy before the court," and that…”
Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990). “The procedure for a plaintiff to dismiss a limited action is stated in K.S.A. 60-241, which is incorporated into the Code by reference in K.”
Crockett v. Medicalodges, Inc., 799 P.2d 1022 (Kan. 1990). “The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Medicalodges on the theory that two prior filings were involuntarily dismissed and thus barred by K.S.A. 60-241 and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.”
State v. Russell, 610 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1980).
McCullough v. Bethany Med. Ctr., 683 P.2d 1258 (Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1) — 9 cases
LaPOINTE v. State, 214 P.3d 684 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Back-Wenzel v. Williams, 109 P.3d 1194 (Kan. 2005).
Smith v. State, 924 P.2d 662 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “Under these circumstances, we have, in the past, relied upon the federal court’s interpretation of Rule 41(a) to guide us in interpreting K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1). See 20 Kan. App. 2d at 574 .”
Handy v. Reed, 81 P.3d 450 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “Reed’s argument that because he had never been served in Handy I at the time of the dismissal that K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1) rather than (a)(2) applies and thus the dismissal would be automatic, preventing the trial court from having the power to set terms and conditions upon which…”
In re Geeding, 907 P.2d 124 (Kan. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(A)(i) — 2 cases
Reva Bell v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
Kleypas v. State, 522 P.3d 304 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
U.S. Energy Expl. Corp. v. Directional Drilling Sys. (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
Wurster v. HomeVestors of Am., Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(B) — 3 cases
Reva Bell v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
Kleypas v. State, 522 P.3d 304 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Campbell (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(h) — 1 case
Lewis v. Gilbert, 785 P.2d 1367 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(i) — 1 case
Taylor v. Int'l Union of Elec. Workers, 968 P.2d 685 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(1)(ii) — 1 case
Emma Greenlee v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 572 F.2d 273 (10th Cir. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(2) — 28 cases
Smith v. Graham, 147 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2006). “Unless otherwise specified, a dismissal under K.S.A. 60-241(a)(2) is without prejudice, leaving a plaintiff with the ability to file another lawsuit.”
Handy v. Reed, 81 P.3d 450 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “Reed’s argument that because he had never been served in Handy I at the time of the dismissal that K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1) rather than (a)(2) applies and thus the dismissal would be automatic, preventing the trial court from having the power to set terms and conditions upon which…”
Holick v. Burkhart, 388 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (D. Kan. 2019). “On May 7, 2015, Defendant filed a 3-page motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-241(a), arguing the temporary PFS order had expired by operation of law no later than March 7, 2015, such that there "is no actual controversy before the court," and that…”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Maish, 908 P.2d 1329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990). “The procedure for a plaintiff to dismiss a limited action is stated in K.S.A. 60-241, which is incorporated into the Code by reference in K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(i) — 1 case
Reva Bell v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(l) — 7 cases
Smith v. State, 924 P.2d 662 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “Under these circumstances, we have, in the past, relied upon the federal court’s interpretation of Rule 41(a) to guide us in interpreting K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1). See 20 Kan. App. 2d at 574 .”
Sumner v. Law Offices of Berg, 890 P.2d 742 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
Handy v. Reed, 81 P.3d 450 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “Reed’s argument that because he had never been served in Handy I at the time of the dismissal that K.S.A. 60-241(a)(1) rather than (a)(2) applies and thus the dismissal would be automatic, preventing the trial court from having the power to set terms and conditions upon which…”
LaPOINTE v. State, 214 P.3d 684 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Caplinger v. Carter, 676 P.2d 1300 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(l)(i) — 2 cases
Quality Developers, Inc. v. Thorman, 31 P.3d 296 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Taylor v. Int'l Union of Elec., Elec., Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers, 968 P.2d 685 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(a)(l)(ii) — 1 case
Lewis v. Gilbert, 785 P.2d 1367 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(b) — 30 cases
Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 770 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1989). “61,647 (4) What is the proper standard of review for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-241(b)? (5) Whether the trial court erred: (a) in finding that KBS did not establish a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance; (b) in finding that the settlement agreement…”
Morris v. Francisco, 708 P.2d 498 (Kan. 1985).
Crockett v. Medicalodges, Inc., 799 P.2d 1022 (Kan. 1990). “The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Medicalodges on the theory that two prior filings were involuntarily dismissed and thus barred by K.S.A. 60-241 and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.”
Baker v. R. D. Andersen Constr. Co., 644 P.2d 1354 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 60-241( b ) provides in part as follows: "After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, without waiving the defendant's right to offer evidence in the event the…”
Martinez v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. (In Re Martinez), 444 B.R. 192 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(b)(1) — 10 cases
Herington v. City of Wichita, 479 P.3d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
Green v. Gen. Motors Corp., 437 P.3d 94 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
The Woodmont Co. v. West Ridge Pizza Pub (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
Cosgrove v. Dept. of Soc. & Rehabilitative Svcs., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (D. Kan. 2010).
Boos v. Marks (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(b)(2) — 10 cases
Namelo v. Broyles, 103 P.3d 486 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). ““(2) The judge may on the judge’s own motion cause a case to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, but only after directing the clerk to notify counsel of record not less than 10 days in advance of such intended dismissal, that an order of dismissal will be…”
Fischer v. Roberge, 120 P.3d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
Green v. Gen. Motors Corp., 437 P.3d 94 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
In Re the Marriage of Galvin, 83 P.3d 805 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
Lehman v. City of Topeka, 323 P.3d 867 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(b)(l) — 3 cases
Moore v. Luther, 35 P.3d 277 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Namelo v. Broyles, 103 P.3d 486 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). ““(2) The judge may on the judge’s own motion cause a case to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, but only after directing the clerk to notify counsel of record not less than 10 days in advance of such intended dismissal, that an order of dismissal will be…”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Johnson, 85 P.3d 1252 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(d) — 1 case
Peterson v. Garney Constr. Co., 584 P.2d 1269 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(fe) — 1 case
Livingston v. Est. of Bias, 673 P.2d 1197 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-241(h) — 2 cases
Flanigan v. City of Leavenworth, 657 P.2d 555 (Kan. 1983).
Livingston v. Est. of Bias, 673 P.2d 1197 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
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.