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

K.S.A. § 60-409 (2026)

Facts which must or may be judicially noticed

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

60-409. Facts which must or may be judicially noticed. (a) Judicial notice shall be taken without request by a party, of the common law, constitutions and public statutes in force in every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States, and of such specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.

(b) Judicial notice may be taken without request by a party, of (1) private acts and resolutions of the Congress of the United States and of the legislature of this state, and duly enacted ordinances and duly published regulations of governmental subdivisions or agencies of this state, and (2) the laws of foreign countries and (3) such facts as are so generally known or of such common notoriety within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute, and (4) specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.

(c) Judicial notice shall be taken of each matter specified in subsection (b) of this section if a party requests it and (1) furnishes the judge sufficient information to enable him or her properly to comply with the request and (2) has given each adverse party such notice as the judge may require to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet the request.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-409; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Brownlee, 354 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Brownlee, 354 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 9× “1094 (2010) (district court erred in taking judicial notice of criminal history under K.S.A. 60-409; Department of Correction's online system includes a disclaimer of accuracy of information); see also http://www.”
Miami Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc., 255 P.3d 1186 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 2× “60-409[c]), includes testimony regarding (1) the significant economic impact of recreational trails that preexisted the enactment of the KRTA and which were not then and are not now covered by the statute and (2) the impact of current and future plans for interstate rail-trails.…”
MSW, INC. v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 24 P.3d 175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “MSW partially relies on the district court’s duty to take judicial notice of specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute under K.S.A. 60-409(a).”
State v. Yazell, 465 P.3d 1147 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 60-409(a) (allowing courts to take judicial notice of facts of "generalized knowledge").”
State v. Mell, 182 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “But K.S.A. 60-409 allows a court to take judicial notice only of "such facts as are so generally known or of such common notoriety within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.”
Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.), 412 P.3d 1008 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “60-412(c) (reviewing court in its discretion may take judicial notice of any matter specified in K.S.A. 60-409 whether or not judicially noticed by district court).”
State v. Smith, 423 P.3d 530 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “And we can find no evidence in the record to point to what his musical preferences might have been in 1993 when he was 16 years old. Under Supreme Court Rule 601B, Canon 2, Rule 2.”
In Re the Adoption of B.J.M., 209 P.3d 200 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “60-412(c) (stating that reviewing court in its discretion may take judicial notice of any matter specified in K.S.A. 60-409 whether or not judicially noticed by district court).”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “In clarifying that it was also making a best interests finding, the district court noted that it had "reviewed the file and the materials in it" earlier that morning.”
State v. Phillips, 479 P.3d 176 (Kan. 2021). “Adding to the complication, Phillips specifically requested remand for reconsideration on the existing record, rather than a new evidentiary hearing. And this request is reasonable given that the district court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the immunity motion, and…”
Fasse v. Lower Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 736 P.2d 930 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “Lower claims that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of pages extracted from the Federal Register and that the Federal Register does not fall within the category of documents set forth at K.S.A. 60-409(b) for which judicial notice may properly be taken.”
Baker v. Hayden, 490 P.3d 1164 (Kan. 2021). “247); K.S.A. 60-409(b)(4). Generally, it is the allegations in Baker's petition that would dictate the outcome of this appeal from the district court order dismissing the action based on the pleadings.”
Show all 111 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-409(a) — 14 cases
State v. Yazell, 465 P.3d 1147 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 60-409(a) (allowing courts to take judicial notice of facts of "generalized knowledge").”
State v. Phillips, 479 P.3d 176 (Kan. 2021). “Adding to the complication, Phillips specifically requested remand for reconsideration on the existing record, rather than a new evidentiary hearing. And this request is reasonable given that the district court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the immunity motion, and…”
State v. Finch, 244 P.3d 673 (Kan. 2011).
MSW, INC. v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 24 P.3d 175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “MSW partially relies on the district court’s duty to take judicial notice of specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute under K.S.A. 60-409(a).”
State v. Graham, 61 P.3d 662 (Kan. 2003).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(b) — 18 cases
Fasse v. Lower Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 736 P.2d 930 (Kan. 1987). “Lower claims that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of pages extracted from the Federal Register and that the Federal Register does not fall within the category of documents set forth at K.S.A. 60-409(b) for which judicial notice may properly be taken.”
MSW, INC. v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 24 P.3d 175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “MSW partially relies on the district court’s duty to take judicial notice of specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute under K.S.A. 60-409(a).”
In Re the Marriage of Brown, 795 P.2d 375 (Kan. 1990).
In re Wrongful Conviction of Spangler, 547 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2024).
City of Wichita v. Trotter, 514 P.3d 1050 (Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(b)(1) — 1 case
Wilkerson v. City of Atchison (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(b)(3) — 6 cases
State v. Schuette, 44 P.3d 459 (Kan. 2002).
Kerry G. v. Stacy C., 386 P.3d 921 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
Ed Bozarth Chevrolet, Inc. v. Black, 96 P.3d 272 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
Doe v. Thompson, 373 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Stine (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(b)(4) — 26 cases
State v. Brownlee, 354 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2015). “1094 (2010) (district court erred in taking judicial notice of criminal history under K.S.A. 60-409; Department of Correction's online system includes a disclaimer of accuracy of information); see also http://www.”
In Re Interests K.H., 444 P.3d 354 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “In clarifying that it was also making a best interests finding, the district court noted that it had "reviewed the file and the materials in it" earlier that morning.”
Baker v. Hayden, 490 P.3d 1164 (Kan. 2021). “247); K.S.A. 60-409(b)(4). Generally, it is the allegations in Baker's petition that would dictate the outcome of this appeal from the district court order dismissing the action based on the pleadings.”
Sierra Club v. Moser, 310 P.3d 360 (Kan. 2013).
Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.), 412 P.3d 1008 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “60-412(c) (reviewing court in its discretion may take judicial notice of any matter specified in K.S.A. 60-409 whether or not judicially noticed by district court).”
— K.S.A. § 60-409(b)(l) — 3 cases
Goodwin v. City of Kansas City, 766 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1988).
State v. Marino, 929 P.2d 173 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
City of Wichita v. Rice, 889 P.2d 789 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(c) — 12 cases
H. Wayne Palmer & Assocs. v. Heldor Indus., Inc., 839 F. Supp. 770 (D. Kan. 1993).
Cent. Nat. Resources, Inc. v. Davis Operating Co., 201 P.3d 680 (Kan. 2009).
MSW, INC. v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 24 P.3d 175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “MSW partially relies on the district court’s duty to take judicial notice of specific facts and propositions of generalized knowledge as are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute under K.S.A. 60-409(a).”
Laterra Ex Rel. Com. Nat'l Bank v. Treaster, 844 P.2d 724 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Lilley, 647 P.2d 1323 (Kan. 1982).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(c)(2) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 636 P.2d 807 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(fi)(3) — 1 case
Odam v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 621 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-409(h)(3) — 1 case
Combined Inv. Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 605 P.2d 533 (Kan. 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.