K.S.A. » Chapter 60

K.S.A. § 60-518

New action, when

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-518. New action, when. If any action be commenced within due time, and the plaintiff fail in such action otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the same shall have expired, the plaintiff, or, if the plaintiff die, and the cause of action survive, his or her representatives may commence a new action within six (6) months after such failure.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-518; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 133 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc. (2012) kan · cites it 84× “: The primary question raised in this appeal is whether the Kansas saving statute, K.S.A. 60-518, applies and saves the plaintiff s action from being barred by the applicable statute of limitation.”
Harsay v. University of Kansas (2018) kan · cites it 23× “Harsay then refiled within six months, relying on K.S.A. 60-518, the savings statute, to make her action timely.”
Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc. (2015) kan · cites it 13× “About 5 months later Neighbor appealed again, relying upon K.S.A. 60-518 to save the appeal from an otherwise untimely filing frailty.”
Roy v. Young (2004) kan · cites it 11× “K.S.A. 60-518 provides that a plaintiff may commence a new action within 6 months of a failure of a timely petition for reasons other than on the merits.”
Taylor v. Casey (2002) ksd · cites it 31× “Judge Kelly dismissed Bywater because the statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs defamation claim and the Kansas savings statute, K.S.A. § 60-518, did not apply because the parties in Bywater differed from the parties in Taylor I.”
Cooke v. Gillespie (2008) kan · cites it 4× “He held that since the previous action was dismissed by the Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds in 2002, these claims were "saved" under the provisions of the saving statute, K.S.A. 60-518. Accordingly, he found that as a matter of equity, because the parties shared equally…”
See v. Hartley (1995) kan · cites it 9× “The sole issue before this court is whether the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit and refile it within the six-month savings period provided by K.S.A. 60-518, but after the expiration of the four-year period provided by K.”
Ripley v. Tolbert (1996) kan · cites it 7× “The district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that K.S.A. 60-518 saved the plaintiff’s lawsuit.”
Smith v. Graham (2006) kan · cites it 8× “Smith claimed this action was permitted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-518 because the second petition was dismissed other than upon the merits.”
Dunn v. City of Emporia (1982) kanctapp · cites it 10× “60-304(d), merely voidable and therefore sufficient to “commence” an action for purposes of K.S.A. 60-518? We will discuss these issues in the order presented.”
Clanton v. Estivo (1999) kanctapp · cites it 13× “Clanton contends that her suit was timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-518, commonly known as the savings statute.”
Gessner v. Phillips County Commissioners (2000) kan · cites it 9× “12-105b, but have this failure cured by the application of the savings statute, K.S.A. 60-518. We hold that they may not.”
Show all 133 citing cases →
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.