Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-242 (2026)

Multicounty and multidistrict litigation

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-242. Multicounty and multidistrict litigation. (a) Consolidation. If actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court in the same or different counties in the judicial district, the court may:

(1) Join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions;

(2) consolidate the actions; or

(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.

(b) Separate trials. For convenience, to avoid prejudice or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial in the county where the action is pending, or a different county in the judicial district, of one or more separate issues, claims, counterclaims, crossclaims or third-party claims. When ordering a separate trial, the court must preserve any right to a jury trial.

(c) Multidistrict litigation. (1) When civil actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences are pending in different judicial districts, the supreme court, on request of a party or of any court in which one of the actions is pending and upon finding that a transfer and consolidation will promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions, may order transfer of the pending actions to one of the counties in which an action is pending. The actions may be consolidated for discovery, pretrial proceedings and possible trial. The supreme court must designate a judge to hear the consolidated actions. Actions filed subsequent to the order may be consolidated as provided in this section.

(2) The assigned judge may conduct all pretrial and discovery proceedings, issue pretrial and discovery orders, decide questions of law, including motions for summary judgment and, when the assigned judge conducts a trial, allocate expenses of the trial among counties.

(3) The assigned judge may conduct a joint trial of any or all of the consolidated actions, but all parties to the actions jointly tried must consent to joint trial. Jury trials may be conducted in any county that would have had venue of any of the consolidated actions, subject to a change of venue under K.S.A. 60-609, and amendments thereto. If the assigned judge decides not to conduct the trial of any of the consolidated actions or if a party to any of the consolidated actions does not consent to joint trial, the assigned judge must return that action, and the record in that action, to the district court from which it originated. The assigned judge must notify the supreme court that the action has been returned.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-242; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1983, ch. 195, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 111; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · leading case: State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 12× “2d 595 (1968) (motion asking for bifurcation under K.S.A. 60-242[b] [Corrick] rests largely in discretion of trial court).”

Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc., 624 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “Finally, we note that where several actions are brought by individual creditors, the trial court may, in its discretion, consolidate those actions against Dighton Grain for trial pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242( a ). I would remand this case for a new trial.”

Brennan v. Kunzle, 154 P.3d 1094 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “60-213(j); K.S.A. 60-242(b); Hindman v. Shepard, 205 Kan.”

Betts v. Gen. Motors Corp., 689 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2× “In Phase I of the trial, the plaintiffs were authorized to introduce evidence establishing that there was a design defect in the 1973 Monte Carlo which caused unreasonable danger to the ordinary user and which was foreseeable to the manufacturer.”

Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Sec'y of the Kansas Dep't of Transp., 671 P.2d 511 (Kan. 1983). “K.S.A. 60-242(a) provides when two or more actions involve common questions of law or fact a district court may order the actions consolidated for a single proceeding.”

Poff v. IBP, Inc., 106 P.3d 1152 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “IBP states that here the ALJ fully complied with his obligations to both parties in receiving evidence, setting terminal dates, setting out procedures for trial, and in rendering separate awards on separate claims for compensation.”

Crow v. City of Wichita, 566 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1977). “In finding no error in consolidation we are not relying upon K.S.A. 60-242 (a) authorizing consolidation in civil actions.”

Plains Petroleum Co. v. First Nat'l Bank of Lamar, 49 P.3d 432 (Kan. 2002). “The cases before us on appeal were consolidated and transferred to Stevens County District Court, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242(c) and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 146 (2001 Kan.”

Bott v. Wendler, 453 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1969). “It found there were common questions of law and fact in each of the three cases and ordered the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242. The order provided that the trial be limited to the issues contained in the order, and the charges of negligence and…”

Hindman v. Shepard, 468 P.2d 103 (Kan. 1970). · cites it 2× “) The controlling issues tried by the court which determined the claims of all par-ties to this action were essentially equitable in nature. No constitutional right to a trial by jury was violated when these controlling equitable issues were separated and tried by the court.”

Jordan v. Jordan, 274 P.3d 657 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “2d 865 (1975), the court interpreted K.S.A. 60-242(a): “The statute uses the word ‘may,’ leaving the matter to the sound discretion of the district court.”

Bartlett v. Heersche, 496 P.2d 1314 (Kan. 1972). “60-213 ( g ), but in which the multiple claims were separated for trial pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242 ( b ), does the entry of the verdict upon the docket constitute the effective date of judgment for the purpose of computation of interest? *373 "2.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-242(a) — 5 cases

Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc., 624 P.2d 952 (Kan. 1981). “Finally, we note that where several actions are brought by individual creditors, the trial court may, in its discretion, consolidate those actions against Dighton Grain for trial pursuant to K.S.A. 60-242( a ). I would remand this case for a new trial.”

McHorse v. Eaks, 7 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

— K.S.A. § 60-242(b) — 3 cases

State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). “2d 595 (1968) (motion asking for bifurcation under K.S.A. 60-242[b] [Corrick] rests largely in discretion of trial court).”

Brennan v. Kunzle, 154 P.3d 1094 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “60-213(j); K.S.A. 60-242(b); Hindman v. Shepard, 205 Kan.”

Betts v. Gen. Motors Corp., 689 P.2d 795 (Kan. 1984). “In Phase I of the trial, the plaintiffs were authorized to introduce evidence establishing that there was a design defect in the 1973 Monte Carlo which caused unreasonable danger to the ordinary user and which was foreseeable to the manufacturer.”

— K.S.A. § 60-242(c) — 2 cases

FreeState Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (Kan. 2024).

— K.S.A. § 60-242(c)(l) — 1 case

McHorse v. Eaks, 7 P.3d 1272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

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.