60-723.
Garnishment of earnings of public officers and employees; state property exempt from enforcement of judgments.
(a) All provisions, requirements, conditions and exemptions of the garnishment laws of the state of Kansas shall apply to all state, county, city, township and school district officers and employees, as well as to all officers and employees of all municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, to the same extent and effect as such laws apply under the existing statutes of the state of Kansas to officers and employees of private corporations, subject to the limitations contained in K.S.A. 60-717 and 60-718, and amendments thereto.
(b) Consent is hereby given for garnishment proceedings to be brought against the state and such counties, townships, cities, school districts and other municipal or quasi-municipal corporations in the same manner and under the same procedure as is now provided by law for bringing such proceedings against private corporations.
(c) All income withholding orders for support or orders of garnishment attaching earnings of a state officer or employee shall be served upon the director of accounts and reports.
(d) All property, funds, credits and indebtedness of the state or of any agency of the state shall be exempt from garnishment, attachment, levy and execution and sale, and no judgment against the state or any agency of the state shall be a charge or lien on any such property, funds, credits or indebtedness.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-723; L. 1969, ch. 284, § 3; L. 1981, ch. 232, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 273, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shah, 906 P.2d 642 (Kan. 1995).
· cites it 10× “May the plaintiffs holding the excess judgment prosecute such a bad faith action against the Fund by way of garnishment in light of K.S.A. 60-723(d)? The facts as set forth in the district court's order certifying these questions are as follows.”
Aves ex rel. Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996).
“May the plaintiffs holding the excess judgment prosecute such a bad faith action against the Fund by way of garnishment in light of K.S.A. 60-723(d)? On November 3, 1995, the Kansas Supreme Court responded to the first question by holding that K.”
Aves by & Through Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996).
“Whether, in light of the provisions of the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act, Kansas law recognizes a claim of bad faith against the Health Care Stabilization Fund when a judgment is returned in excess of the Fund's statutory limits of liability.”
— K.S.A. § 60-723(d) — 3 cases
Aves Ex Rel. Aves v. Shah, 906 P.2d 642 (Kan. 1995).
“May the plaintiffs holding the excess judgment prosecute such a bad faith action against the Fund by way of garnishment in light of K.S.A. 60-723(d)? The facts as set forth in the district court's order certifying these questions are as follows.”
Aves ex rel. Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996).
“May the plaintiffs holding the excess judgment prosecute such a bad faith action against the Fund by way of garnishment in light of K.S.A. 60-723(d)? On November 3, 1995, the Kansas Supreme Court responded to the first question by holding that K.”
Aves by & Through Aves v. Shah, 914 F. Supp. 443 (D. Kan. 1996).
“Whether, in light of the provisions of the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act, Kansas law recognizes a claim of bad faith against the Health Care Stabilization Fund when a judgment is returned in excess of the Fund's statutory limits of liability.”
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.