Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-256 (2026)

Summary judgment

✓ current as of May 2026

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

60-256. Summary judgment. (a) By a claiming party. A party claiming relief may move, with or without supporting affidavits or supporting declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.

(b) By a defending party. A party against whom relief is sought may move, with or without supporting affidavits or supporting declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.

(c) Time for a motion; response and reply; proceedings. (1) These times apply unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise:

(A) A party may move for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery;

(B) a party opposing the motion must file a response within 21 days after the motion is served or a responsive pleading is due, whichever is later; and

(2) The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits or declarations show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(d) Case not fully adjudicated on the motion. (1) Establishing facts. If summary judgment is not rendered on the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable, determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue. The court should so determine by examining the pleadings and evidence before it and by interrogating the attorneys. It should then issue an order specifying what facts, including items of damages or other relief, are not genuinely at issue. The facts so specified must be treated as established in the action.

(2) Establishing liability. An interlocutory summary judgment may be rendered on liability alone, even if there is a genuine issue on the amount of damages.

(e) Affidavits or declarations; further testimony. (1) In general. A supporting or opposing affidavit or declaration must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or part of a paper is referred to in an affidavit or declaration, a sworn or certified copy must be attached to or served with the affidavit or declaration. The court may permit an affidavit or declaration to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or additional affidavits or declarations.

(2) Opposing party's obligation to respond. When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must, by affidavits or by declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, or as otherwise provided in this section, set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party.

(f) When affidavits or declarations are unavailable. If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit or by declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

(1) Deny the motion;

(2) order a continuance to enable affidavits or declarations to be obtained, depositions to be taken or other discovery to be undertaken; or

(3) issue any other just order.

(g) Affidavits or declarations submitted in bad faith. If satisfied that an affidavit or declaration under this section is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court must order the submitting party or attorney to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, it incurred as a result. An offending party or attorney may be held in contempt.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-256; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 11; L. 1987, ch. 218, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 29; L. 2007, ch. 190, § 18; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 129; L. 2014, ch. 82, § 34; L. 2015, ch. 81, § 22; June 5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 367 cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Denney v. Norwood, 505 P.3d 730 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 12× “60-212(b)(6) or K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-256 when evaluating a motion to summarily dismiss a petition for habeas corpus under K.”

Beck v. Kansas Adult Auth., 735 P.2d 222 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 10× “60-212 as a motion for summary judgment under K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 60-256; and (4) whether the Kansas Adult Authority is immune from liability under the discretionary function exception to the Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.”

Lambert v. Peterson, 439 P.3d 317 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 8× “60-212(d) ; K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-256. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Novak died on June 22, 2014.”

Mitchell v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 24 P.3d 711 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 4× “Mitchell countered with his own motion for summary judgment objecting to the affidavit of Albert Sharlun based upon the provisions of K.S.A. 60-256(e). In its response to Mitchell’s motion, Liberty asserted that UPS had actually executed rejections in 1990 and 1991 but that…”

Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 60-256(e) (Affi *286 davits must set forth evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial.”

Bacon v. Mercy Hosp. of Ft. Scott, 756 P.2d 416 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 3× “Summary judgment is governed by K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 60-256, which provides in pertinent part: “(c) .”

Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 432 P.3d 647 (Kan. 2019). “) To be sure, the City has arguments demonstrating its counterpoint, which is why the panel correctly remanded for the district court to resolve disputed facts, despite incorrectly imposing a higher evidentiary burden than the tenants would need to prevail.”

Acord v. Porter, 475 P.3d 665 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “The standard for granting summary judgment—whether completely or partially— is governed by K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-256 and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 141 (2020 Kan.”

Williamson v. City of Hays, 64 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 2× “Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of…”

In Re Bryan, 61 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 5× “” Biyan further points out that the Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure, K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-256(a), allow a party “seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may .”

Dawson v. Prager, 76 P.3d 1036 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 4× “” The trial court, in fact, did not mention *387 Rule 141, but quoted K.S.A. 60-256, the statutory counterpart.”

Sharples v. Roberts, 816 P.2d 390 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 4× “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment…”

Show all 367 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-256(a) — 12 cases

In Re Bryan, 61 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2003). “” Biyan further points out that the Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure, K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-256(a), allow a party “seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may .”

Crooks v. Greene, 736 P.2d 78 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987).

In Re the Est. of Barnes, 512 P.2d 387 (Kan. 1973).

Heinsohn v. Motley, 761 P.2d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).

State v. Crudo, 517 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(b) — 7 cases

Acord v. Porter, 475 P.3d 665 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The standard for granting summary judgment—whether completely or partially— is governed by K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-256 and Kansas Supreme Court Rule 141 (2020 Kan.”

Hauptman v. WMC, INC., 224 P.3d 1175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).

In re Parentage of E.A., 518 P.3d 419 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

Ringneck Farms v. Steuwe (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(c) — 140 cases

Williamson v. City of Hays, 64 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2003). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of…”

Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., 44 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2002).

Jackson Ex Rel. Essien v. Unified Sch. Dist. 259, 995 P.2d 844 (Kan. 2000).

Mills v. City of Overland Park, 837 P.2d 370 (Kan. 1992).

Sharples v. Roberts, 816 P.2d 390 (Kan. 1991). “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment…”

— K.S.A. § 60-256(c)(1)(A) — 2 cases

First Nat'l Bank of Omaha v. Lucas (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).

Riney v. McGuire (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(c)(1)(B) — 2 cases

Cox v. Cmty. State Bank, 444 P.3d 377 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).

All States Home Improvement v. Beltz (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(c)(2) — 34 cases

Cent. Kansas Med. Ctr. v. Hatesohl, 425 P.3d 1253 (Kan. 2018).

Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015).

Montgomery v. Saleh, 419 P.3d 8 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).

Whaley v. Sharp, 343 P.3d 63 (Kan. 2014).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(d) — 5 cases

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

In Re the Marriage of Case, 856 P.2d 169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, Inc. v. Black, 96 P.3d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).

Stetler v. Fosha, 682 P.2d 682 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).

Vallejo v. BNSF Ry. Co., 263 P.3d 208 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(e) — 39 cases

Mitchell v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 24 P.3d 711 (Kan. 2001). “Mitchell countered with his own motion for summary judgment objecting to the affidavit of Albert Sharlun based upon the provisions of K.S.A. 60-256(e). In its response to Mitchell’s motion, Liberty asserted that UPS had actually executed rejections in 1990 and 1991 but that…”

Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-256(e) (Affi *286 davits must set forth evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial.”

Glenn v. Fleming, 799 P.2d 79 (Kan. 1990).

Wichita Eagle & Beacon Publ'g Co. v. Simmons, 50 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2002).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(e)(1) — 5 cases

Doe v. Thompson, 373 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2016).

Ritter v. Gas-Mart USA, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).

Big Boi Trucking & Logistics v. TAFS, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).

Smoots v. S. Star Cent. Gas Pipline (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

Est. of Kuebler v. Kansas Vill. at Old Town (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(e)(2) — 15 cases

Lambert v. Peterson, 439 P.3d 317 (Kan. 2019). “60-212(d) ; K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-256. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Novak died on June 22, 2014.”

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. McConnell, 305 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

Carr v. Vannoster, 281 P.3d 1186 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(e)(l) — 1 case

Doe v. Thompson, 373 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2016).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(f) — 16 cases

Troutman v. Curtis, 185 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2008).

N. Nat. Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Servs. Co., 296 P.3d 1106 (Kan. 2013).

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

John Doe v. M.J., 508 P.3d 368 (Kan. 2022).

Levin v. Maw Oil & Gas, LLC, 234 P.3d 805 (Kan. 2010).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(f)(1) — 1 case

Cox v. Cmty. State Bank, 444 P.3d 377 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(fe) — 1 case

Johnson v. Miller, 655 P.2d 475 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(g) — 1 case

Rood v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 755 P.2d 502 (Kan. 1988).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(h) — 1 case

Stetler v. Fosha, 682 P.2d 682 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).

— K.S.A. § 60-256(o) — 1 case

Henderson v. Ripperger, 594 P.2d 251 (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.