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

K.S.A. § 60-308 (2026)

Service outside state

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

60-308. Service outside state. (a) Proof and effect. (1) Service of process may be made on any party outside this state. If on a party domiciled in this state or on a party that has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, such service provides personal jurisdiction over that party; otherwise it provides in rem jurisdiction over specifically identified property that party has in this state.

(2) The service of process must be made: (A) In the same manner as service within this state, by an officer authorized to serve process in this state or in the state where the party is served; or (B) by a party or the party's attorney pursuant to subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-303, and amendments thereto. No order of a court is required. The server must file an affidavit or a declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, or any other competent proof, stating the time, manner and place of service. The court may consider the affidavit, declaration or any other competent proof in determining whether service has been properly made.

(3) No default may be entered until the expiration of at least 30 days after service. A default judgment rendered on service outside this state may be set aside only on a showing that is timely and sufficient under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-260, and amendments thereto, to set aside a default judgment.

(b) Submitting to jurisdiction. (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of the following acts, thereby submits the person and, if an individual, the individual's representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any claim for relief arising from the act:

(A) Transacting any business in this state;

(B) committing a tortious act in this state;

(C) owning, using or possessing real estate located in this state;

(D) contracting to insure any person, property or risk located in this state at the time of contracting;

(E) entering into an express or implied contract, by mail or otherwise, with a resident of this state to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this state;

(F) acting in this state as director, manager, trustee or other officer of any corporation organized under the laws of or having a place of business in this state or as executor or administrator of any estate in this state;

(G) causing to persons or property in this state an injury arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant if, at the time of the injury, either:

(i) The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities in this state; or

(ii) products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed in this state in the ordinary course of trade or use;

(H) living in a marital relationship in this state notwithstanding subsequent departure from this state, for all obligations arising for maintenance, child support or property settlement under the Kansas family law code, chapter 23 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, if the other party to the marital relationship continues to reside in this state;

(I) serving as insurer of a person at the time of an act by the person which is the subject of an action in a court of competent jurisdiction in this state which results in judgment being taken against the person;

(J) having sexual intercourse in this state, in an action seeking to adjudge the person to be a parent of a child and in an action to require the person to provide support for a child as provided by law, if: (i) The conception of the child results from the act; and (ii) the other party to the act or the child continues to reside in this state;

(K) entering into an express or implied arrangement, whether by contract, tariff or otherwise, with a corporation or partnership residing or doing business in this state under which the corporation or partnership has supplied transportation services or communication service or equipment, including telephonic communication services, for a business or commercial user when the services supplied to the user are managed, operated or monitored in this state, provided that the person is given reasonable notice that arranging or continuing the transportation services or communication services may result in jurisdiction under this section; or

(L) having contact with this state which would support jurisdiction consistent with the constitutions of the United States and of this state.

(2) A person submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for a claim for relief which did not arise in this state if substantial, continuous and systematic contact with this state is established which would support jurisdiction consistent with the constitutions of the United States and of this state.

(c) Section not exclusive. Nothing in this section affects the right to serve process in any other manner provided by law.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-308; L. 1971, ch. 195, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 221, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 253, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 152, § 23; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 16; L. 1989, ch. 178, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 202, § 9; L. 2000, ch. 175, § 4; L. 2006, ch. 49, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 153; L. 2012, ch. 162, § 77; May 31.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 265 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 34× “In analyzing whether there was a basis for personal jurisdiction, the Scrivner court noted that the plaintiffs had disclaimed any reliance on tire long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308, and were not arguing that their cause of action arose out of the transaction of any business by the…”
Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 703 P.2d 731 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 23× “60-308(b)(2) to apply, it must be found that an injury which occurs in this state as a result of a negligent act outside this state is equivalent to the commission of a "tortious act within the state.”
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). · cites it 37× “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
Kluin v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 56 P.3d 829 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 23× “However, in his response to Suzuld’s motion to dismiss, he cites subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5) of K.S.A. 60-308, which provide, in part: “(b) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of…”
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). · cites it 19× “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 14× “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative because Kansas was not a convenient jurisdiction to try the issues (forum non conveniens).”
Prof'l Investors Life Ins. v. Roussel, 445 F. Supp. 687 (D. Kan. 1978). · cites it 13× “The problem before the Court is whether the acts alleged will support assumption of jurisdiction over each defendant under the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308. The Court noted at the hearing that the nature and quality of each defendant’s contacts with Kansas differed…”
In re Marriage of Williams, 417 P.3d 1033 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 3× “But in a case such as this, where Joann could only initiate the divorce action by serving process on Alfonza while he and his residence were located in a different state, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-308 governs the basis for a Kansas court to exercise jurisdiction.”
Four B Corp. v. Ueno Fine Chemicals Indus., Ltd., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 30× “Section 60-308(b)(2) provides that any person submits to the jurisdiction of the Kansas courts “as to any cause of action arising from .”
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 10× “The Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-308(b), defines when Kansas exercises specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 662 P.2d 553 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 11× “Appellants raise two questions on appeal: (1) Has subject matter jurisdiction been preempted by federal law in favor of a federal agency, and (2) are these individual defendants subject to in personam jurisdiction in the Kansas courts under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-308(b)?…”
Green Country Crude, Inc. v. Avant Petroleum, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Kan. 1986). · cites it 13× “In addressing the question of jurisdiction we must first determine whether defendant’s conduct falls within the scope of any of the enumerated provisions of the Kansas long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308(b), authorizing service of process on nonresident defendants.”
Show all 265 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-308(5) — 1 case
Eferakeya v. Twin City State Bank, 777 P.2d 759 (Kan. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a) — 4 cases
Perry v. Perry, 623 P.2d 513 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
Nat'l Bank of Am. at Salina v. Calhoun, 253 F. Supp. 346 (D. Kan. 1966).
AkesoGenX Corp. v. Zavala (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
Davis v. United States Dep't of Just. (D. Kan. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a)(2) — 4 cases
In Re Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).
Hall v. Quivira Square Dev. Co., 675 P.2d 931 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
Pedi Bares, Inc. v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 567 F.2d 933 (10th Cir. 1977).
Bayless v. Dieckhaus, 106 P.3d 83 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a)(2)(A) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1994).
Centrinex, LLC v. Darkstar Grp., LTC (D. Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a)(2)(B) — 2 cases
Cessna Fin. Corp. v. VYWB, LLC, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Kan. 2013).
Centrinex, LLC v. Darkstar Grp., LTC (D. Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a)(3) — 2 cases
In Re Marriage of Ruth, 83 P.3d 1248 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
AkesoGenX Corp. v. Zavala (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(a)(l) — 1 case
Todd v. Lakeland Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc., 834 P.2d 387 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b) — 129 cases
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). “In analyzing whether there was a basis for personal jurisdiction, the Scrivner court noted that the plaintiffs had disclaimed any reliance on tire long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308, and were not arguing that their cause of action arose out of the transaction of any business by the…”
Kluin v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 56 P.3d 829 (Kan. 2002). “However, in his response to Suzuld’s motion to dismiss, he cites subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5) of K.S.A. 60-308, which provide, in part: “(b) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of…”
Cotracom Commodity Trading AG v. Seaboard Corp., 94 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Kan. 2000).
Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Superior Oil Co., 460 F. Supp. 483 (D. Kan. 1978).
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012). “The Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-308(b), defines when Kansas exercises specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1) — 28 cases
Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089 (Kan. 1987). “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative because Kansas was not a convenient jurisdiction to try the issues (forum non conveniens).”
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Kan. 1998).
Green Country Crude, Inc. v. Avant Petroleum, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1443 (D. Kan. 1986). “In addressing the question of jurisdiction we must first determine whether defendant’s conduct falls within the scope of any of the enumerated provisions of the Kansas long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308(b), authorizing service of process on nonresident defendants.”
Env't Ventures, Inc. v. Alda Servs. Corp., 868 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(A) — 9 cases
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012). “The Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-308(b), defines when Kansas exercises specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Mr. Cinnamon of Kansas, Inc. v. Hall, 202 P.3d 734 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Mr. Cinnamon of Kansas, Inc. v. Hall, 202 P.3d 734 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Freedom Transp., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp. (D. Kan. 2019).
Butler v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (D. Kan. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(B) — 7 cases
Midwest Mfg., Inc. v. Ausland, 273 P.3d 804 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
L.S. v. C.S. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
Freedom Transp., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp. (D. Kan. 2019).
Butler v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (D. Kan. 2020).
Butler v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (D. Kan. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(E) — 10 cases
Mr. Cinnamon of Kansas, Inc. v. Hall, 202 P.3d 734 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Mr. Cinnamon of Kansas, Inc. v. Hall, 202 P.3d 734 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Temple v. Ghadimi (D. Kan. 2023).
Freedom Transp., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp. (D. Kan. 2019).
Rhythm Eng'g, LLC v. A.D. Elec., Inc. (D. Kan. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(F) — 1 case
Lucas v. Dadson Mfg. Corp. (D. Kan. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(H) — 2 cases
In re Marriage of Williams, 417 P.3d 1033 (Kan. 2018). “But in a case such as this, where Joann could only initiate the divorce action by serving process on Alfonza while he and his residence were located in a different state, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-308 governs the basis for a Kansas court to exercise jurisdiction.”
In re Marriage of Gracey & Albawardi (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(L) — 10 cases
Hutton & Hutton Law Firm, LLC v. Girardi & Keese, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (D. Kan. 2015).
L.S. v. C.S. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
Reverse My Fees, LLC v. True POS Solutions, Inc. (D. Kan. 2023).
Haarslev, Inc. v. Christensen Mach., Inc. <b><font color=\red\"> Case Consol. for Discovery All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 23-cv-2569</font></b>" (D. Kan. 2024).
Haarslev, Inc. v. Tom's Metal Enter., LLC (D. Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(10) — 4 cases
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
Prof'l Investors Life Ins. v. Roussel, 445 F. Supp. 687 (D. Kan. 1978). “The problem before the Court is whether the acts alleged will support assumption of jurisdiction over each defendant under the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308. The Court noted at the hearing that the nature and quality of each defendant’s contacts with Kansas differed…”
Carrington v. Unseld, 923 P.2d 1052 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(2) — 44 cases
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). “In analyzing whether there was a basis for personal jurisdiction, the Scrivner court noted that the plaintiffs had disclaimed any reliance on tire long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308, and were not arguing that their cause of action arose out of the transaction of any business by the…”
Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 703 P.2d 731 (Kan. 1985). “60-308(b)(2) to apply, it must be found that an injury which occurs in this state as a result of a negligent act outside this state is equivalent to the commission of a "tortious act within the state.”
Fid. State Bank, Garden City, Kan. v. Oles, 130 B.R. 578 (D. Kan. 1991).
Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089 (Kan. 1987). “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative because Kansas was not a convenient jurisdiction to try the issues (forum non conveniens).”
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(4) — 1 case
Stephenson v. Barringer, 758 F. Supp. 657 (D. Kan. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(5) — 35 cases
Cont'l Am. Corp., D/B/A Pioneer Balloon Co., Plaintiff v. Camera Controls Corp., D/B/A Max Balloon Co., 692 F.2d 1309 (10th Cir. 1982).
Universal Premium Acceptance Corp. v. Oxford Bank & Trust, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Kan. 2003).
Kluin v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 56 P.3d 829 (Kan. 2002). “However, in his response to Suzuld’s motion to dismiss, he cites subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5) of K.S.A. 60-308, which provide, in part: “(b) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of…”
Pehr v. Sunbeam Plastics Corp., 874 F. Supp. 317 (D. Kan. 1995).
Carrothers Constr. Co. v. Quality Serv. & Supply, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 134 (D. Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(6) — 3 cases
Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 662 P.2d 553 (Kan. 1983). “Appellants raise two questions on appeal: (1) Has subject matter jurisdiction been preempted by federal law in favor of a federal agency, and (2) are these individual defendants subject to in personam jurisdiction in the Kansas courts under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-308(b)?…”
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
Blair-Naughton, L.L.C. v. Diner Concepts, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Kan. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7) — 13 cases
Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 703 P.2d 731 (Kan. 1985). “60-308(b)(2) to apply, it must be found that an injury which occurs in this state as a result of a negligent act outside this state is equivalent to the commission of a "tortious act within the state.”
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
Four B Corp. v. Ueno Fine Chemicals Indus., Ltd., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Kan. 2003). “Section 60-308(b)(2) provides that any person submits to the jurisdiction of the Kansas courts “as to any cause of action arising from .”
Midwest Elevator Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 508 F. Supp. 578 (D. Kan. 1981).
Prof'l Investors Life Ins. v. Roussel, 445 F. Supp. 687 (D. Kan. 1978). “The problem before the Court is whether the acts alleged will support assumption of jurisdiction over each defendant under the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308. The Court noted at the hearing that the nature and quality of each defendant’s contacts with Kansas differed…”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7)(A) — 1 case
Worthington v. Small, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (D. Kan. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7)(B) — 2 cases
St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. v. Int'l Playtex, Inc., 777 P.2d 1259 (Kan. 1989).
Johnson v. Goodyear S.A. Colmar Berg, 716 F. Supp. 531 (D. Kan. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7)(H) — 1 case
Midwest Elevator Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 508 F. Supp. 578 (D. Kan. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7)(i) — 1 case
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(7)(ii) — 1 case
Midwest Elevator Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 508 F. Supp. 578 (D. Kan. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(8) — 4 cases
In Re the Marriage of Brown, 795 P.2d 375 (Kan. 1990).
In Re Marriage of Ruth, 83 P.3d 1248 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
Marriage of Salas v. Salas, 19 P.3d 184 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Kendall v. Kendall, 585 P.2d 978 (Kan. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(A) — 2 cases
Haarslev, Inc. v. Christensen Mach., Inc. <b><font color=\red\"> Case Consol. for Discovery All Non-Dispositive filings to be made in Lead Case 23-cv-2569</font></b>" (D. Kan. 2024).
Haarslev, Inc. v. Tom's Metal Enter., LLC (D. Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(l) — 42 cases
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
Kluin v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 56 P.3d 829 (Kan. 2002). “However, in his response to Suzuld’s motion to dismiss, he cites subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5) of K.S.A. 60-308, which provide, in part: “(b) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of…”
Dirks v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 642 F. Supp. 971 (D. Kan. 1986).
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089 (Kan. 1987). “Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative because Kansas was not a convenient jurisdiction to try the issues (forum non conveniens).”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(l)(A) — 2 cases
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012). “The Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-308(b), defines when Kansas exercises specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Gfsi, Inc. v. Comfort Knitwears (Pvt), Ltd., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (D. Kan. 2010).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(l)(B) — 3 cases
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012). “The Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-308(b), defines when Kansas exercises specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.”
Sheldon v. Khanal, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2008).
Arnold v. Maxmind, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (D. Kan. 2016).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(l)(G) — 1 case
Arnold v. Maxmind, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (D. Kan. 2016).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(bX5) — 1 case
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(bX6) — 1 case
J. E. M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978). “statute, including subsection (b)(2), from the Illinois Civil Practice Act of 1955, Ill.”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(bXl) — 1 case
Thermal Insulation Sys., Inc. v. Ark-Seal Corp., 508 F. Supp. 434 (D. Kan. 1980). “Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction over the defendant exists pursuant to the Kansas long arm statute: K.S.A. § 60-308. The specific statutory provision relied upon, K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(c) — 1 case
US Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Boran, 716 F. Supp. 505 (D. Kan. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(c)(2) — 1 case
Hall v. Quivira Square Dev. Co., 675 P.2d 931 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(d) — 2 cases
Novak v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 28 P.3d 1033 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
Porter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 257 P.3d 788 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(e) — 5 cases
Beck v. Atl. Contracting Co., 157 F.R.D. 61 (D. Kan. 1994).
Howard v. Jenny's Country Kitchen, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 559 (D. Kan. 2004).
Kasting v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 196 F.R.D. 595 (D. Kan. 2000).
US Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Boran, 716 F. Supp. 505 (D. Kan. 1988).
Cessna Fin. Corp. v. VYWB, LLC, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (D. Kan. 2013).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(fc)(2) — 1 case
Slayden v. Sixta, 813 P.2d 393 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(fe) — 2 cases
Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 662 P.2d 553 (Kan. 1983). “Appellants raise two questions on appeal: (1) Has subject matter jurisdiction been preempted by federal law in favor of a federal agency, and (2) are these individual defendants subject to in personam jurisdiction in the Kansas courts under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-308(b)?…”
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(fe)(5) — 1 case
Aspen Prods., Inc. v. Global Distributors, Inc., 947 P.2d 49 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(fe)(8) — 1 case
Perry v. Perry, 623 P.2d 513 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(fe)(l) — 1 case
Rosedale State Bank & Trust Co. v. Stringer, 579 P.2d 158 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h) — 2 cases
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). “In analyzing whether there was a basis for personal jurisdiction, the Scrivner court noted that the plaintiffs had disclaimed any reliance on tire long arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308, and were not arguing that their cause of action arose out of the transaction of any business by the…”
Davis v. Grace, 610 P.2d 1140 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(1) — 1 case
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(2) — 1 case
Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 662 P.2d 553 (Kan. 1983). “Appellants raise two questions on appeal: (1) Has subject matter jurisdiction been preempted by federal law in favor of a federal agency, and (2) are these individual defendants subject to in personam jurisdiction in the Kansas courts under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-308(b)?…”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(5) — 2 cases
Davis v. Grace, 610 P.2d 1140 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(6) — 1 case
Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 662 P.2d 553 (Kan. 1983). “Appellants raise two questions on appeal: (1) Has subject matter jurisdiction been preempted by federal law in favor of a federal agency, and (2) are these individual defendants subject to in personam jurisdiction in the Kansas courts under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-308(b)?…”
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(8) — 2 cases
Kendall v. Kendall, 585 P.2d 978 (Kan. 1978).
Guye v. Guye, 654 P.2d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(h)(l) — 2 cases
Davis v. Grace, 610 P.2d 1140 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-308(o) — 1 case
Gideon v. Gates, 611 P.2d 166 (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.