60-608.
Multiple parties.
If there are several plaintiffs properly joined and venue is determined by the residence of one of them, it shall be necessary that such plaintiff's claim is a substantial part of the action. If there are several defendants properly joined, venue of the action may be determined at the election of the plaintiff as to any one of the defendants against whom a substantial claim exists. If, before trial of an action on the merits is commenced, a party with reference to whom venue was determined ceases to be a party and venue would no longer be proper as to the remaining parties, on the application of any remaining party promptly made, the cause shall be transferred to a county of proper venue. If there is more than one such county, the transfer shall be to a county selected by the plaintiff.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-608; January 1, 1964.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1976–1999 · leading case:
Schmidt v. Shearer, 995 P.2d 381 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
Schmidt v. Shearer, 995 P.2d 381 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “60-608, which provides in pertinent part: “If, before trial of an action on the merits is commenced, a party with reference to whom venue was determined ceases to be a party and venue would no longer be proper as to the remaining parties, on the application of any remaining…”
Fredricks v. Foltz, 557 P.2d 1252 (Kan. 1976).
“K.S.A. 60-608 reads: “If there are several plaintiffs properly joined and venue is determined by the residence of one of them, it shall be necessary that such plaintiff’s claim is a substantial part of the action.”
Quillin v. Hesston Corp., 640 P.2d 1195 (Kan. 1982).
“K.S.A. 60-608, -609 and -611, each permit transfer of a case from one district court to another in certain specified situations.”
Fredricks v. Foltz, 594 P.2d 665 (Kan. 1979).
“K.S.A. 60-608. See also Fredricks v. Foltz, 221 Kan.”
Copeland v. Robinson, 970 P.2d 69 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
“KDR’s argument is premised on the assumption that the authority for filing the case in Sedgwick County is K.S.A. 60-608 pertaining to venue in a case involving multiple defendants.”
Midwest Elevator Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 508 F. Supp. 578 (D. Kan. 1981).
“It is these very factors that the legislature intended the court to look at when it added provisoes (i) and (ii) to § 60-608(b)(7). Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed as to Fab-Weld and Power-Hose as a result of plaintiffs’ failure to establish facts essential to the…”
— K.S.A. § 60-608(b)(7) — 1 case
Midwest Elevator Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 508 F. Supp. 578 (D. Kan. 1981).
“It is these very factors that the legislature intended the court to look at when it added provisoes (i) and (ii) to § 60-608(b)(7). Therefore, the complaint must be dismissed as to Fab-Weld and Power-Hose as a result of plaintiffs’ failure to establish facts essential to the…”
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.