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

K.S.A. § 60-802 (2026)

Procedure for relief

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

60-802. Procedure for relief. (a) Generally. Relief in the form of mandamus shall be obtained under the same procedure as relief in other civil actions. If it be desired in connection with any mandamus proceeding to stay any proceedings or acts pending determination of the mandamus proceeding, the plaintiff may combine therewith an application for relief under article 9 of this chapter. The judgment in mandamus shall specify with particularity the act or acts which the defendant is compelled to perform or enjoined from performing.

(b) Peremptory order. When the right to require the performance of the act is clear, and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not performing it, a peremptory order of mandamus may be allowed in the first instance.

(c) Damages. If judgment be given for the plaintiff, he or she may also recover such damages as he or she may have sustained by reason of the failure of the defendant to perform the specified duty, together with costs.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-802; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Willis v. Kansas High. Patrol, 41 P.3d 824 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Willis v. Kansas High. Patrol, 41 P.3d 824 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 7× “” The issuance of a peremptoiy writ of mandamus is statutorily provided for in K.S.A. 60-802: “(a) Generally. Relief in tire form of mandamus shall be obtained under the same procedure as relief in other civil actions.”
Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 1170 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-802. This court has original jurisdiction in mandamus.”
State Ex Rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 172 P.3d 1154 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 60-802(c). The relators’ arguments suggest that we should review the matter de novo.”
Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 997 P.2d 697 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 3× “58-1304(a)(4) was unreasonable and urged the district court to award it attorney fees under K.S.A. 60-802(c). The City contends that it enforced the ADA through a cooperative partnership with Link.”
Schmidtlien Elec., Inc. v. Greathouse, 104 P.3d 378 (Kan. 2005). “However, Petitioners argue that their request is not an appeal, but rather a request for mandamus pursuant to K.S.A. 60-802(a). District courts clearly have jurisdiction over mandamus actions.”
Carolina Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs also seek damages pursuant to K.S.A. § 60-802 for the alleged breach. KS.”
Corder v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 889 P.2d 1127 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 3× “The court also concluded that “a public office holder in his individual capacity is shielded from damage liability under previously existing concepts of the use of mandamus against a government official by the factual absence of findings of malice, oppression in office, willful…”
State Ex Rel. Stephan v. O'KEEFE, 686 P.2d 171 (Kan. 1984). “K.S.A. 60-802. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which is available only in cases in which the usual form of procedure is powerless to afford relief.”
State v. Jenkins, 950 P.2d 1338 (Kan. 1997). “However, Barten involved an award of attorney fees authorized by K.S.A. 60-802(c) as damages in a mandamus proceeding.”
Golconda Screw, Inc. v. West Bottoms Ltd., 894 P.2d 260 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Barten held that attorney fees were recoverable damages in a mandamus action pursuant to K.S.A. 60-802(c). 200 Kan. at 510 . Barten does not stand for the proposition that a court can exercise equitable jurisdiction to impose attorney fees.”
Mobil Oil Corp. v. McHenry, 436 P.2d 982 (Kan. 1968). “60-801), the change of the name from "writ" to "order" did not change the traditional character of the remedy, and the provision that the remedy is obtainable "under the same procedure as relief in other civil actions" (K.S.A. 60-802 [ a ]), simply means *248 that the petition…”
Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 578 P.2d 718 (Kan. 1978). “79-2005 in that the refund is made “out of the fund or funds receiving the same.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-802(a) — 2 cases
Schmidtlien Elec., Inc. v. Greathouse, 104 P.3d 378 (Kan. 2005). “However, Petitioners argue that their request is not an appeal, but rather a request for mandamus pursuant to K.S.A. 60-802(a). District courts clearly have jurisdiction over mandamus actions.”
State, ex rel. Kobach v. Harper (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 60-802(b) — 2 cases
Willis v. Kansas High. Patrol, 41 P.3d 824 (Kan. 2002). “” The issuance of a peremptoiy writ of mandamus is statutorily provided for in K.S.A. 60-802: “(a) Generally. Relief in tire form of mandamus shall be obtained under the same procedure as relief in other civil actions.”
State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 759 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 60-802(c) — 10 cases
State Ex Rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 172 P.3d 1154 (Kan. 2007). “” K.S.A. 60-802(c). The relators’ arguments suggest that we should review the matter de novo.”
Link, Inc. v. City of Hays, 997 P.2d 697 (Kan. 2000). “58-1304(a)(4) was unreasonable and urged the district court to award it attorney fees under K.S.A. 60-802(c). The City contends that it enforced the ADA through a cooperative partnership with Link.”
Corder v. Kansas Bd. of Healing Arts, 889 P.2d 1127 (Kan. 1994). “The court also concluded that “a public office holder in his individual capacity is shielded from damage liability under previously existing concepts of the use of mandamus against a government official by the factual absence of findings of malice, oppression in office, willful…”
State v. Jenkins, 950 P.2d 1338 (Kan. 1997). “However, Barten involved an award of attorney fees authorized by K.S.A. 60-802(c) as damages in a mandamus proceeding.”
Golconda Screw, Inc. v. West Bottoms Ltd., 894 P.2d 260 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Barten held that attorney fees were recoverable damages in a mandamus action pursuant to K.S.A. 60-802(c). 200 Kan. at 510 . Barten does not stand for the proposition that a court can exercise equitable jurisdiction to impose attorney fees.”
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.