History:
L. 1969, ch. 290, § 61-2008; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 161, § 117; January 1, 2001.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Error to permit tenants to assert as defense landlord's failure to deliver timely notice of damages under K.S.A. 58-2550. Asbury v. Mauk, 9 Kan. App. 2d 699, 702, 687 P.2d 31 (1984).
2. Default judgment as acquiescence where garnishment contested, social security and veteran's disability benefits as exempt from garnishment examined. Younger v. Mitchell, 245 Kan. 204, 207, 777 P.2d 789 (1989).
Younger v. Mitchell, 777 P.2d 789 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2דMitchell protested garnishment of those funds from the beginning, as he was entitled to do under K.S.A. 61-2008(c). Hence, Mitchell’s receipt of part of the account balance cannot be considered the sort of acquiescence that would preclude this appeal.”
Asbury v. Mauk, 687 P.2d 31 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 61-2008(c) delineates the scope of the defenses available to the judgment debtor in a garnishment proceeding prosecuted in a case brought under our Code of Civil Procedure for Limited Actions.”
— K.S.A. § 61-2008(c) — 2 cases
Younger v. Mitchell, 777 P.2d 789 (Kan. 1989). “Mitchell protested garnishment of those funds from the beginning, as he was entitled to do under K.S.A. 61-2008(c). Hence, Mitchell’s receipt of part of the account balance cannot be considered the sort of acquiescence that would preclude this appeal.”
Asbury v. Mauk, 687 P.2d 31 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). “K.S.A. 61-2008(c) delineates the scope of the defenses available to the judgment debtor in a garnishment proceeding prosecuted in a case brought under our Code of Civil Procedure for Limited Actions.”
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.