Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-250 (2026)

Judgment as a matter of law; motion for new trial

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-250. Judgment as a matter of law; motion for new trial. (a) Judgment as a matter of law. (1) In general. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) Resolve the issue against the party; and

(B) grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.

(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

(3) Comparative fault actions. The court must reserve decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law by a party joined under subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-258a, and amendments thereto, until all evidence has been presented by any party alleging the movant's fault.

(b) Renewing the motion after trial; alternative motion for a new trial. If the court does not grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made under subsection (a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, or, if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by the verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged, the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under K.S.A. 60-259, and amendments thereto. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) Allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2) order a new trial; or

(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

(c) Granting the renewed motion; conditional ruling on a motion for a new trial. (1) In general. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.

(2) Effect of a conditional ruling. Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment's finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.

(d) Time for a losing party's motion for a new trial. Any motion for a new trial under K.S.A. 60-259, and amendments thereto, by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.

(e) Denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law; reversal on appeal. If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted or direct the entry of judgment.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-250; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 9; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 26; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 121; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 129 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Simon v. Nat'l Farmers Org., Inc., 829 P.2d 884 (Kan. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simon v. Nat'l Farmers Org., Inc., 829 P.2d 884 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 6× “After the better market was lost, the milk went to a cheese manufacturing plant which normally buys a lower grade of milk at substantially lower prices.”

Taiwo v. Kim Phan Thi Vu, 822 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 4× “60-250 the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be…”

Nat'l Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 225 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “Standard of Review Appellate courts apply the same standard as trial courts when considering a motion for directed verdict, now known as a judgment as a matter of law under K.S.A. 60-250. See Smith v. Kansas Gas Service Co.”

Turner v. Halliburton Co., 722 P.2d 1106 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 3× “The basis of the motions as to the defamation verdict was twofold: first, the allegedly defamatory statements were subject to a qualified privilege requiring actual malice to be proven and there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict and, second, Turner is precluded…”

Miller v. Johnson, 289 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 2× “*682 Johnsons Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Johnson filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under K.S.A. 60-250, arguing that Miller failed to prove causation because Miller’s medical condition often requires the removal of both ovaries.”

Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 60-250(b). Lawton’s motion for a new trial was based on several issues, including two that are pertinent to this appeal.”

Nold Ex Rel. Nold v. Binyon, 31 P.3d 274 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-250 (formerly motion for directed verdict).”

Schroeder v. Urban, 750 P.2d 405 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 4× “The running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion made pursuant to any of the rules hereinafter enumerated, and the full time for appeal fixed in this subsection commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a…”

Deal v. Bowman, 188 P.3d 941 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “For reasons set forth in this opinion, this court, like the district court, concludes that Bowman’s testimony raised a factual question concerning the reasonableness of his actions and thus agrees with *858 the decision to submit the question of negligence/liability to the jury.”

Brown v. United Methodist Homes for the Aged, 815 P.2d 72 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 60-250 [1979]). Concerning UMH's argument that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, this court has held that when a verdict is challenged for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, this court does not weigh the evidence or pass on the…”

Read v. Miller, 802 P.2d 528 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 4× “the period enlarged *565 if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the…”

Dawson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 437 P.3d 929 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 2× “At the close of Dawson's case-in-chief, BNSF moved for a directed verdict (now called judgment as a matter of law) pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-250(a), arguing, in part, that Dawson's cumulative injury claim was time barred.”

Show all 129 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-250(a) — 10 cases

Dawson v. BNSF Ry. Co., 437 P.3d 929 (Kan. 2019). “At the close of Dawson's case-in-chief, BNSF moved for a directed verdict (now called judgment as a matter of law) pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-250(a), arguing, in part, that Dawson's cumulative injury claim was time barred.”

City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. North Am., 287 P.3d 214 (Kan. 2012).

City of Neodesha v. BP Corp. North Am., Inc., 334 P.3d 830 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

Casas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 130 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

Russell v. May (Kan. 2017).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(a)(1) — 11 cases

Evergreen Recycle, L.L.C. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 350 P.3d 1091 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

Budd v. Walker, 491 P.3d 1273 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).

Casas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 130 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

Becker v. Knoll, 199 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).

Perez v. Wesley Med. Ctr. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(a)(l) — 4 cases

RAMA Operating Co. v. Barker, 286 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Burch v. Burch, 120 P.3d 799 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

In re the Appeal of Nat'l Catastrophe Restoration, Inc., 291 P.3d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

Schreiber v. Beach, 97 P.3d 525 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(b) — 18 cases

Williams v. Lawton, 207 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2009). “See K.S.A. 60-250(b). Lawton’s motion for a new trial was based on several issues, including two that are pertinent to this appeal.”

Schroeder v. Urban, 750 P.2d 405 (Kan. 1988). “The running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion made pursuant to any of the rules hereinafter enumerated, and the full time for appeal fixed in this subsection commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon a…”

Ponds v. State, 437 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).

Dieker v. Case Corp., 73 P.3d 133 (Kan. 2003).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(b)(3) — 1 case

Marcus v. Swanson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(c) — 3 cases

Taiwo v. Kim Phan Thi Vu, 822 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1991). “60-250 the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be…”

Reyna v. Gen. Grp. of Companies, 814 P.2d 961 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Kansas Comm'n on Civil Rights, 845 P.2d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(e) — 1 case

State v. Harris, 915 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1996).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(fc) — 2 cases

Giles v. Russell, 567 P.2d 845 (Kan. 1977).

Bolser v. Zoning Bd. for Aubry Twp., 612 P.2d 563 (Kan. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 60-250(h) — 1 case

Roitz v. Brooks, 619 P.2d 1169 (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.