60-718.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-718; L. 1967, ch. 324, § 1; L. 1969, ch. 284, § 2; L. 1970, ch. 238, § 8; L. 1972, ch. 222, § 3; L. 1978, ch. 227, § 3; L. 1982, ch. 247, § 2; L. 1983, ch. 198, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 212, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 213, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 204, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 170, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 273, § 3; L. 1999, ch. 131, § 12; Repealed, L. 2002, ch. 198, § 19; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1978–2004 · leading case:
Bergeson v. Dilworth, 749 F. Supp. 1555 (D. Kan. 1990).
Bergeson v. Dilworth, 749 F. Supp. 1555 (D. Kan. 1990).
· cites it 12× “State Farm filed a timely answer in accordance with K.S.A. § 60-718(a), and has prayed that plaintiff’s garnishment action be dismissed.”
Watson v. Jones, 610 P.2d 619 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 6× “See K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 60-718. The garnishee-insurer had pled the policy defense of noncooperation of its assured, Burley Jones.”
Bartlett Coop. Ass'n v. Patton, 722 P.2d 551 (Kan. 1986).
· cites it 5× “K.S.A. 60-718(a). The provision of the Code which is in issue in this case is K.”
Farm & City Ins. v. Johnson, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Kan. 2002).
· cites it 4× “45 against the INS, both alleging failure to pay pursuant to the orders to pay, and seeking the full amount of plaintiffs judgment against Johnson pursuant to K.S.A. §§ 60-718 and 721. 2 USDA received the motion for judgment against it on October 16, 2001, and INS received the…”
DeTienne v. DeTienne, 815 F. Supp. 394 (D. Kan. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to K.S.A 60-718(a) (Supp. 1991), the garnishee shall file a verified answer to the order of garnishment within ten days after service (30 days pursuant to 42 U.”
Ortiz v. Biscanin, 122 P.3d 365 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“The court specifically finds that Guaranty did not file an answer to the garnishment, as required by K.S.A. 60-718. However, in view of the other findings and conclusions, the court determines that it need not rule further on Guaranty’s failure to file a timely answer, and does…”
Dailey v. Walden, 648 P.2d 258 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “The basis for this decision was that appellant Alice Walden had failed to timely object pursuant to K.S.A. 60-718(c) and because CACE took the realty subject to the garnishment.”
Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980).
“Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-718(a). The clerk must “promptly” serve copies of those answers on the creditor and debtor, id.”
Whisler v. Whisler, 684 P.2d 1025 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
“60-717(b) (post- *628 judgment garnishment orders need not be served on defendant); K.S.A. 60-718(c) (defendant may controvert any statement in garnishee’s answer); K.”
Kansas Sand & Concrete, Inc. v. Lewis, 650 P.2d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The City contends that plaintiff’s reply controverting the City’s answer was not filed in a timely manner, and therefore the allegations of the answer are deemed to be confessed pursuant to K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 60-718(c), which provides in part: “(c) The clerk shall cause a copy of…”
Brown v. Tubbs, 582 P.2d 1165 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
“Under K.S.A. 60-718(c), defendant had twenty days from the date of filing the garnishee’s answer in which to reply.”
K.S.A. § 60-718(a): 7 cases
Bergeson v. Dilworth, 749 F. Supp. 1555 (D. Kan. 1990).
“State Farm filed a timely answer in accordance with K.S.A. § 60-718(a), and has prayed that plaintiff’s garnishment action be dismissed.”
Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980).
“Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-718(a). The clerk must “promptly” serve copies of those answers on the creditor and debtor, id.”
DeTienne v. DeTienne, 815 F. Supp. 394 (D. Kan. 1993).
“Pursuant to K.S.A 60-718(a) (Supp. 1991), the garnishee shall file a verified answer to the order of garnishment within ten days after service (30 days pursuant to 42 U.”
K.S.A. § 60-718(c): 16 cases
Bergeson v. Dilworth, 749 F. Supp. 1555 (D. Kan. 1990).
“State Farm filed a timely answer in accordance with K.S.A. § 60-718(a), and has prayed that plaintiff’s garnishment action be dismissed.”
Watson v. Jones, 610 P.2d 619 (Kan. 1980).
“See K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 60-718. The garnishee-insurer had pled the policy defense of noncooperation of its assured, Burley Jones.”
Dailey v. Walden, 648 P.2d 258 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
“The basis for this decision was that appellant Alice Walden had failed to timely object pursuant to K.S.A. 60-718(c) and because CACE took the realty subject to the garnishment.”
K.S.A. § 60-718(o): 1 case
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.