Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-254 (2026)

Judgment

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-254. Judgment. (a) Definition. A judgment is the final determination of the parties' rights in an action.

(b) Judgment on multiple claims or involving multiple parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief, whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

(c) Demand for judgment; relief to be granted. A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings. Before a default judgment is taken in an action in which the pleading of the party seeking relief states only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $75,000, without demanding a specific amount of money, as provided in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 60-208, and amendments thereto, the party seeking relief must notify the party against whom relief is sought of the amount of money for which judgment will be taken. Notice must be given by return receipt delivery, or as the court orders, at least 14 days before the date judgment is sought. Every other final judgment should grant relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-254; L. 1973, ch. 233, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 10; L. 1990, ch. 203, § 2; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 28; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 127; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 158 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Ullery v. Othick, 372 P.3d 1135 (Kan. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ullery v. Othick, 372 P.3d 1135 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 37× “Defendants O’Brien and Beatty have filed supplemental briefs arguing that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.”

Prime Lending II, LLC v. Trolley's Real Est. Holdings, LLC, 304 P.3d 683 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 41× “Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff s motion and certifies the August 24, 2011, Memorandum Decision as a final judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 60-254.” The trial court also denied Trolley s motion for leave to amend its answer.”

City of Salina v. Star B, Inc., 731 P.2d 1290 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 29× “2d 1025 (1984) (“A final judgment of one or more claims in a lawsuit pursuant to K.S.A. 60-254[b], to be effective, must follow the filing requirements of K.”

St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. v. Int'l Playtex, Inc., 777 P.2d 1259 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 8× “60-256) and (2) final judgment certification (K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 60-254[b]), exercised by the trial court in tandem, carry the appeal to this court.”

State v. Hendricks, 372 P.3d 437 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-254(b) provides *740 that a judgment usually is not final if the court resolves only some of the pending claims for relief.”

Haddock v. State, 146 P.3d 187 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 5× “On July 23, 2004, Haddock, through current counsel, filed a “Motion for Final Decision Pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-254” requesting that a final order resolving all issues presented to the district court be filed so that he could file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.”

Gillespie v. Seymour, 823 P.2d 782 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 4× “*128 The trial court dismissed the claims against defendants Burdge and Grant-Thornton and certified the judgment to be final pursuant to K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-254(b). The plaintiffs appealed therefrom.”

City of Salina v. Star B, Inc., 739 P.2d 933 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 12× “The efficacy of the November 30 journal entry depends upon, as the Court of Appeals noted, “whether entry of a partial summary judgment ‘pursuant to K.S.A. 60-254(b)’ satisfied the requirements for certification in K.”

In Re Cherokee Cnty., Kansas Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds, 946 P.2d 83 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 10× “The trial court agreed with the trustee and certified Mumma's appeal under the provision of K.S.A. 60-254(b). We affirm. The facts are not in dispute.”

Honeycutt v. City of Wichita, 836 P.2d 1128 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 4× “The trial court did not issue a K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-254(b) certificate. Thus, the summary judgments were not final judgments and could not be appealed until final judgments were granted on the remaining claims.”

N. Nat. Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., 296 P.3d 1106 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 2× “The district court certified the Order as a final judgment under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-254(b), and Northern immediately appealed to the Court of Appeals.”

Harsch v. Miller, 200 P.3d 467 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 3× “Indeed, this court has held that even a trial court’s sincere, but erroneous, attempt to certify a particular order as final for appellate purposes under K.S.A. 60-254(b) ran counter to this policy: “Piecemeal appeals are undesirable and cannot be sanctioned by allowing a trial…”

Show all 158 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-254(a) — 24 cases

Ullery v. Othick, 372 P.3d 1135 (Kan. 2016). “Defendants O’Brien and Beatty have filed supplemental briefs arguing that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.”

Roy v. Young, 93 P.3d 712 (Kan. 2004).

In Re the Marriage of Larimore, 362 P.3d 843 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

In re the Marriage of Brown, 291 P.3d 55 (Kan. 2012).

In re Marriage of Doud & Modrcin, 480 P.3d 800 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-254(b) — 106 cases

Ullery v. Othick, 372 P.3d 1135 (Kan. 2016). “Defendants O’Brien and Beatty have filed supplemental briefs arguing that the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal.”

Prime Lending II, LLC v. Trolley's Real Est. Holdings, LLC, 304 P.3d 683 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff s motion and certifies the August 24, 2011, Memorandum Decision as a final judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 60-254.” The trial court also denied Trolley s motion for leave to amend its answer.”

City of Salina v. Star B, Inc., 731 P.2d 1290 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “2d 1025 (1984) (“A final judgment of one or more claims in a lawsuit pursuant to K.S.A. 60-254[b], to be effective, must follow the filing requirements of K.”

State v. Hendricks, 372 P.3d 437 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). “K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-254(b) provides *740 that a judgment usually is not final if the court resolves only some of the pending claims for relief.”

Gillespie v. Seymour, 823 P.2d 782 (Kan. 1991). “*128 The trial court dismissed the claims against defendants Burdge and Grant-Thornton and certified the judgment to be final pursuant to K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-254(b). The plaintiffs appealed therefrom.”

— K.S.A. § 60-254(c) — 13 cases

Hajda v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 356 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

Producers Equip. Sales, Inc. v. Thomason, 808 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).

Garcia v. Ball, 363 P.3d 399 (Kan. 2015).

First Nat'l Bank v. Sankey Motors, Inc., 204 P.3d 1167 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

In Re the Marriage of Brown, 795 P.2d 375 (Kan. 1990).

— K.S.A. § 60-254(fc) — 2 cases

Dennis v. Se. Kansas Gas Co., 610 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1980).

Every v. Jefferson Ins. Co. of NY, 610 P.2d 645 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 60-254(fe) — 4 cases

Warner v. Warner, 668 P.2d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983).

Patterson v. Missouri Valley Steel, Inc., 625 P.2d 483 (Kan. 1981).

Dennis v. Se. Kansas Gas Co., 610 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1980).

Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. Francisco, 583 P.2d 391 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).

— K.S.A. § 60-254(h) — 5 cases

Dennis v. Se. Kansas Gas Co., 610 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1980).

McGuire v. Sifers, 681 P.2d 1025 (Kan. 1984).

In Re Est. of Burns, 608 P.2d 942 (Kan. 1980).

Kauk v. First Nat'l Bank of Hoxie, 613 P.2d 670 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Smith v. Williams, 592 P.2d 129 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

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.