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

K.S.A. § 60-414 (2026)

Effect of presumptions

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

60-414. Effect of presumptions. Subject to K.S.A. 60-416, and except for presumptions which are conclusive or irrefutable under the rules of law from which they arise, (a) if the facts from which the presumption is derived have any probative value as evidence of the existence of the presumed fact, the presumption continues to exist and the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact is upon the party against whom the presumption operates; (b) if the facts from which the presumption arises have no probative value as evidence of the presumed fact, the presumption does not exist when evidence is introduced which would support a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact, and the fact which would otherwise be presumed shall be determined from the evidence exactly as if no presumption was or had ever been involved.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-414; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 26× “60-414 and amendments thereto that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) A parent has previously been found to be an unfit parent in…”
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “She argues (1) that the State failed to plead or suggest that the presumption would apply, with resulting due process implications; (2) that the court’s failure to consider K.S.A. 60-414 in applying the presumption was reversible error, citing In re J.”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 15× “38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.S.A. 60-414 and amendments thereto that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes by clear and…”
McMurray v. Crawford, 594 P.2d 1109 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 19× “” K.S.A. 60-414. “If two presumptions arise which are conflicting with each other the judge shall apply the presumption which is founded on the weightier consideration of policy and logic.”
Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1472 (D. Kan. 1990). · cites it 6× “Specifically, defendant relies upon K.S.A. § 60-414, which provides in full: Subject to K.”
In the Interest of J.S., 208 P.3d 802 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “It states, in pertinent part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.S.A. 60-414, and amendments thereto, that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes, by clear and…”
State v. 1978 Chevrolet Auto., 835 P.2d 1376 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “K.S.A. 60-414 K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4135(a)(6) states that the presumption raised in that statute is governed by K.”
Miller v. Pfizer Inc.(Roerig Div.), 196 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff also cites K.S.A. § 60-414 for the proposition that the presumption permanently shifts the burden of proof of proximate causation to defendant.”
Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 667 P.2d 380 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 2× “ce of the presumed fact, the presumption continues to exist and the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact is upon the party against whom the presumption operates; ( b ) if the facts from which the presumption arises have no probative value as evidence of…”
Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 397 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2005). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-414 (a). It is our view that the Kansas Supreme Court would agree that "evidence of an inadequate warning easily meets the liberal test for probative value under the Kansas and federal rules,” Mason, 741 F.”
Kansas High. Patrol ex rel. Settle v. 1985 Chevrolet Astro Van VinIGCDM15NOFB177466, 954 P.2d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “60-4112(j) provides: “The fact that money, negotiable instruments, precious metals, communication devices, and weapons were found in close proximity to contraband or an instrumentality of conduct giving rise to forfeiture shall give rise to the rebuttable presumption, in the…”
In Re Kr, 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “She argues (1) that the State failed to plead or suggest that the presumption would apply, with resulting due process implications; (2) that the court's failure to consider K.S.A. 60-414 in applying the presumption was reversible error, citing In re J.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-414(a) — 28 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “60-414 and amendments thereto that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) A parent has previously been found to be an unfit parent in…”
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “She argues (1) that the State failed to plead or suggest that the presumption would apply, with resulting due process implications; (2) that the court’s failure to consider K.S.A. 60-414 in applying the presumption was reversible error, citing In re J.”
Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1472 (D. Kan. 1990). “Specifically, defendant relies upon K.S.A. § 60-414, which provides in full: Subject to K.”
In the Interest of J.L., 891 P.2d 1125 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “38-1585 provides in relevant part: “(a) It is presumed in the manner provided in K.S.A. 60-414 and amendments thereto that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes by clear and…”
State v. 1978 Chevrolet Auto., 835 P.2d 1376 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “K.S.A. 60-414 K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 65-4135(a)(6) states that the presumption raised in that statute is governed by K.”
— K.S.A. § 60-414(a)(1) — 1 case
In re S.G. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 60-414(b) — 8 cases
In the Interest of E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “60-414 and amendments thereto that a parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition which renders the parent unable to fully care for a child, if the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) A parent has previously been found to be an unfit parent in…”
In The Interest Of K.R., 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “She argues (1) that the State failed to plead or suggest that the presumption would apply, with resulting due process implications; (2) that the court’s failure to consider K.S.A. 60-414 in applying the presumption was reversible error, citing In re J.”
McMurray v. Crawford, 594 P.2d 1109 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “” K.S.A. 60-414. “If two presumptions arise which are conflicting with each other the judge shall apply the presumption which is founded on the weightier consideration of policy and logic.”
In Re Kr, 233 P.3d 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “She argues (1) that the State failed to plead or suggest that the presumption would apply, with resulting due process implications; (2) that the court's failure to consider K.S.A. 60-414 in applying the presumption was reversible error, citing In re J.”
In re T.M. (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
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.