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

K.S.A. § 60-450 (2026)

Opinion and specific instances of behavior to prove habit or custom

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

60-450. Opinion and specific instances of behavior to prove habit or custom. Testimony in the form of opinion is admissible on the issue of habit or custom. Evidence of specific instances of behavior is admissible to prove habit or custom if the evidence is of a sufficient number of such instances to warrant a finding of such habit or custom.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-450; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Pope v. Ransdell, 833 P.2d 965 (Kan. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pope v. Ransdell, 833 P.2d 965 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 2× “60-421 because they involved dishonesty and because, along with other evidence, they indicated a habit of drug abuse by Sandra Juby and so were admissible under K.S.A. 60-450. We continue to agree with the conclusion in Van Arsdale that the courts have inherent power over their…”
State v. Gonzales, 783 P.2d 1239 (Kan. 1989). “” Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-450, habit or custom may be proved by opinion testimony or it can be proved by evidence of specific instances of behavior where there are a sufficient number of instances to warrant a *701 finding of such habit.”
State v. Hunt, 176 P.3d 183 (Kan. 2008). “” *865 He further concedes that K.S.A. 60-450 permits a habit to be proved by opinion testimony or by evidence of specific instances of behavior.”
Hardesty v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 915 P.2d 41 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 3× “” K.S.A. 60-450 provides in part: “Evidence of specific instances of behavior is admissible to prove habit or custom if the evidence is of a sufficient number of such instances to warrant a finding of such habit or custom.”
State v. Gaines, 926 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1996). “60-449 and K.S.A. 60-450 as habit evidence. Under these statutes, evidence of specific instances of behavior is admissible to prove a habit and to prove that the defendant acted *766 in conformity with the habit on a certain occasion.”
Frans v. Gausman, 6 P.3d 432 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “60-449 and K.S.A. 60-450 and found that they had not.”
Romain v. Shahouri (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “He argues the district court erred by excluding this evidence as irrelevant due to it being postaccident because K.S.A. 60-450 does not limit habit evidence to incidents occurring before the wreck.”
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.