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

K.S.A. § 60-313 (2026)

Process, return of proof of service; amendment

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

60-313. Process, return of proof of service; amendment. The court may allow any process, return or proof of service to be amended, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-313; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 158; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1968–2006 · leading case: Bray v. Bayles, 609 P.2d 1146 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bray v. Bayles, 609 P.2d 1146 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “60-313, which states: “At any time in his or her discretion and upon such terms as he or she deems just, the judge may allow any process, return or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of…”
State v. Jones, 601 P.2d 1135 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 3× “In serving the subpoena, the attorney met all of the requirements of K.”
Est. of Norris ex rel. Norris v. Hastings, 141 P.3d 511 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “Subsequently, there was no amendment of return as required in K.S.A. 60-313 that would have required the clerk of the district court to mail a copy of the amended return to the plaintiff s attorney.”
Cook v. Freeman, 825 P.2d 1185 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “The court held that service to be valid, noting, “K.S.A. 60-313 allows any process, return or proof of service to be amended at any time unless such amendment would'materially prejudice the substantial rights of the party against whom process was issued.”
Transp. Clearing House, Inc. v. Rostock, 447 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1968). · cites it 2× “(4 Vernons Kansas Statutes Annotated, Code of Civil Procedure, §60-313, f 313.1, p. 170.) For a general discussion of the powers *79 conferred upon a trial judge to permit amendment under this section, see 1 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 186, p.”
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.