K.S.A. » Chapter 61
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 61-1603 (2026)

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

61-1603.

History: L. 1969, ch. 290, § 61-1603; L. 1973, ch. 134, § 50; L. 1976, ch. 258, § 2; L. 1979, ch. 80, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 238, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 212, § 3; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 161, § 117; January 1, 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1979–1998 · leading case: Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 61-1603. It allows the parties the right to a six-person jury trial, if requested.”
Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 680 P.2d 877 (Kan. 1984). “Actions for claims within the scope of the Kansas tort claims act brought *318 under the code of civil procedure for limited actions are subject to the limitations provided in K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 61-1603. “(2) Actions within the scope of the Kansas tort claims act may not be…”
Rose & Nelson v. Frank, 956 P.2d 729 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The amount in controversy was then limited to $5,000, see K.S.A. 61-1603 (Ensley), whereas now, the jurisdiction is unlimited as to “an unsecured debt not sounding in tort and arising out of a contract for the provision of goods, services or money.”
Bonewell v. City of Derby, 693 P.2d 1179 (Kan. 1985). “Actions for claims within the scope of the Kansas tort claims act brought under the code of civil procedure for limited actions are subject to the limitations provided in K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 61-1603. “(2) Actions within the scope of the Kansas tort claims act may not be brought…”
Mitchell v. Wiltfong, 604 P.2d 79 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “The trial court’s dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction to grant equitable relief, and because “[t]he negligence is not imputed to the father in the absence of specific acts by the child which resulted in specific nameable injuries and amounts,” (Appellants’ Br.”
Armstrong v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., 725 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “See K.S.A. 61-1603(a) (setting a $5,000 limit on the amount in controversy).”
Barton v. Miller, 592 P.2d 921 (Kan. 1979). “58-2542, which reads: “The district court, shall have jurisdiction over any landlord or tenant with respect to any conduct in this state governed by this act or with respect to any claim arising from a transaction subject to this act, and notwithstanding the provisions of…”
— K.S.A. § 61-1603(a) — 1 case
Armstrong v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., 725 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “See K.S.A. 61-1603(a) (setting a $5,000 limit on the amount in controversy).”
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.