Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308

Section 60-308(a)(2) allows a court to consider other competent proof of out-of-state service when the server’s return lacks verification.

Cadwallader v. Lehman · filed 1969-03-08(a)(2)

We do not regard this as fatal, however. The district court approved the service, as shown by the journal entry of July 27, 1967. In so doing, the court was authorized, by the statute itself, to consider any competent proof that service had properly been made.

Section 60-308(b)(2) gives Kansas courts jurisdiction over the administrator of a deceased nonresident who committed a tortious act in Kansas, for claims arising from that act.

Barr, Administratrix v. MacHarg, Administrator · filed 1969-06-14(b)(2)

When we consider the plain provisions of K. S. A. 60-308 and the source from which it stems we are convinced the legislature intended to and did extend jurisdiction of our courts to include a foreign administrator in actions brought in Kansas for injuries sustained in an automobile accident in Kansas arising out of a tortious act of a deceased nonresident motorist.

Section 60-308(b)(2) permits personal service on a nonresident motorist involved in a Kansas accident.

Carter v. Kretschmer · filed 1978-05-05(b)(2)

Not only did defendant have an agent within the state upon whom process could have been served but he himself could have been served personally under the long arm statute.

Section 60-308(a) permits service of summons on a defendant who is outside Kansas when the defendant can be located there.

Gideon v. Gates · filed 1980-05-23(a)

It is apparent from the record that service of summons could have been effected under K.S.A. 60-308 while defendant was in Raytown and, under other provisions of article 3 of chapter 60, at all other times following the accrual of the cause of action on November 30, 1974.

Section 60-308(b)(2) permits service under the long-arm statute for alleged tortious conduct in Kansas, even when a defendant is temporarily outside the state.

Bray v. Bayles · filed 1980-06-26(b)(2)

It was possible for plaintiffs here to get service on the defendants at all times either by serving them under the long arm statute for alleged tortious conduct in the state (K.S.A. 60-308[b][2]) or by simply requesting an order from the district court allowing service to be made by leaving a copy of the petition and the summons at the residence of defendants because plaintiffs, after exercising due diligence, could not find the doctors to effect personal delivery (K.S.A. 60-304[a]).

At the time of service, section 60-308(a)(2) required personal service outside Kansas to be made by an officer authorized to serve summons in the state where the defendant was served.

Hall v. Quivira Square Development Co. · filed 1984-02-02(a)(2)

When service was made in this case, personal service outside this state was to be obtained the same way as service within this state, by any officer authorized to make service of summons in the state where the defendant is served. The special process server appointed by the district court of Johnson County, Kansas, was limited by K.S.A. 60-303 to making service within Kansas.

Section 60-308 did not provide for service by mail on the out-of-state defendants in this situation.

Reno Distributors, Inc. v. West Texas Oil Field Equipment, Inc. · filed 1985-03-26

Clearly, service by mail is not a “manner” of service provided by the Kansas statute in this situation. K.S.A. 60-307, -308.

Section 60-308(a)(2) permits service outside Kansas by someone authorized to serve process in Kansas, including a court-appointed special process server.

In Re Marriage of Welliver · filed 1994-03-04(a)(2)

K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-308(a)(2) provides that service out of state can be made (1) by those authorized to serve process within this state, (2) by any officer authorized to make service of process in this state, or (3) by any officer authorized to make service of process in the state where the defendant is served.

Filing a claim in a Kansas insurance liquidation submits the claimant to Kansas jurisdiction, allowing out-of-state service to have the effect of personal service in Kansas.

Todd v. Lakeland Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc. · filed 1992-01-10(a)(1)

The plaintiff contends that under K.S.A. 60-308(a)(l) service upon a party outside the state who has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of Kansas has the force and effect of personal service within this state. The issue is, therefore, whether the return of the claim forms constitutes submission to the courts of Kansas in this matter. Although we have found no cases precisely on point, it appears that the return of the claim forms did precisely that.

Section 60-308(e) permits service outside Kansas by certified mail addressed to an authorized corporate agent; service is complete when the envelope is delivered to that address, even if someone else accepts it.

Beck v. Atlantic Contracting Co. · filed 1994-06-30(e)

Because there is no provision in the Kansas statute that would invalidate service merely because delivery was not made personally to the addressee, and because the court does not believe due process considerations would mandate such a provision, the court finds that proper service upon the defendant was obtained, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-308(e), upon delivery of the certified envelope.

Section 60-308(a)(2) allows service outside Kansas in the same manner as service within Kansas by an officer authorized to serve process in either state.

Security Ben. Life v. Tfs Ins. · filed 1995-02-14(a)(2)

Finally, and equally important, the service of process afforded defendants was in accordance with local procedures and was based on sufficient contacts by defendants with the forum state. ... Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(a)(2) (providing that "service of process shall be made (A) in the same manner as service within this state, by any officer authorized to make service of process in this state or in the state where defendant is served...."); ... Taken together the facts and law establish that defendants had notice reasonably calculated to inform them of plaintiff's Kansas suit.

Section 60-308(e) permits service outside Kansas by certified mail, but service is complete only when the sealed envelope is delivered.

Howard v. Jenny's Country Kitchen, Inc. · filed 2004-08-13(e)

Although K.S.A. § 60-308(e) allows service of out-of-state process via certified mail, return receipt delivery, service of process is considered complete under this provision only "upon the delivery of the sealed envelope.” The envelope to Mr. Wood was returned as undeliverable, and therefore this attempted service was ineffective under K.S.A. § 60-308(e).

Section 60-308(d) requires return receipt service outside Kansas on a corporation to be addressed to a person authorized to receive service under section 60-304; mail addressed only to the corporation is insufficient.

Porter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-05-20(d)

K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 60-308(d) does not dilute these requirements in providing for service “to the party addressed.” Here, Porter and Servpro did not direct their certified mail to any person whatsoever— both of their certified mail attempts were addressed to Wells Fargo generally at an office or a post office box address.

Section 60-308(a)(3) bars entry of default until at least 30 days after service; the filing date of the judgment determines whether that period has passed.

AkesoGenX Corp. v. Zavala · filed 2017-11-09(a)(3)

K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-308(a)(3) states: "No default may be entered until the expiration of at least 30 days after service." ... K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-258 states: "No judgment is effective unless and until a journal entry or judgment form is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk." Thus, it is the filing date that is key. Moreover, based upon the filing date, the district court complied with K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-308(a)(3)'s 30-day time limit.

For out-of-state service by mail, the party or attorney may cause the process and petition to be placed in the envelope without using an authorized process server.

St. John Hospital v. Juarez · filed 2018-02-23(d)(2)

K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 60-308(a)(2)(B) and (d) do not require a process server to place the process and petition in the envelope. Instead, the party or party's attorney "shall cause" the process and petition or other document to be placed in the envelope.

Section 60-308 provides for service outside Kansas through an authorized service agent or in the manner specified by § 60-303(c).

Centrinex, LLC v. Darkstar Group, LTC · filed 2022-11-09(a)(2)

K.S.A. § 60-308 governs service outside Kansas, and provides that service be accomplished ... either by an authorized service agent, ... or in the manner specified by K.S.A. § 60-303(c).

Section 60-308(a)(2)(A) permits service outside Kansas by a process server authorized in Kansas or in the state where service occurs.

Lemen · filed 2026-04-15(a)(2)(A)

Kansas law gives parties two options for serving an out-of-state party: One, a process server authorized in Kansas or in the state where service occurs can serve the party. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(a)(2)(A); In re Marriage of Welliver, 869 P.2d 653, 658–59 (Kan. 1994). No authorized server served process on defendant. So, this option is out.

Section 60-308(b)(5) permits jurisdiction over a nonresident contracting with a Kansas resident when the nonresident’s purposeful conduct makes suit in Kansas reasonably foreseeable and due process permits it.

Helitzer v. Helitzer · filed 1985-04-23(b)(5)

The Kansas statute, modeled upon the Illinois long-arm statute, is intended to extend jurisdiction to the outer limits of due process. ... Under the relaxed standards for personal jurisdiction applied by modern courts, we are satisfied that Melvin’s purposeful conduct, by his voluntary actions, was sufficient that he could anticipate possibly being haled into court in Kansas. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that it had jurisdiction.

Subsection (b)(7) is construed liberally to permit personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process.

Wessinger v. Vetter Corp. · filed 1987-12-17(b)(7)

Thus, because Honda R & D may properly be haled into this court under International Shoe and the fourteenth amendment, the requirements of the Kansas long-arm statute are satisfied.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over nonresidents to the full extent allowed by due process, which requires purposeful availment of Kansas.

NL Industries, Inc. v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc. · filed 1986-08-07(b)

The exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper under this statute where defendant’s conduct is such that it “ ‘purposefully avails itself' ” of the privilege of acting within the forum state and invoking its laws.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent allowed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Equifax Services, Inc., D/B/A Equifax Commercial Specialists F/k/a White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc. v. Hitz · filed 1990-06-04(b)

Here, these inquiries are essentially the same, because “[t]he Kansas long arm statute [Kan.Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b) ] is liberally construed to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent allowed by due process.

Brandi v. Belger Cartage Service, Inc. · filed 1994-01-13(b)

The Kansas courts have liberally interpreted the Kansas long-arm statute to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent allowed by due process.

National Gypsum Co. v. Dalemark Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-10-03(b)

Because K.S.A. 60-308(b), the Kansas long-arm statute, is to be “ ‘liberally construed to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of’ ” the federal Constitution, the two inquiries are basically identical. ... AIJ does not have the minimum contacts with Kansas for this court constitutionally to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by due process.

Kohnle v. U.S. Telecom, Inc. · filed 1997-03-20(b)

Because the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. § 60-308(b), is construed liberally to allow jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process, these two steps involve essentially identical inquiries.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

Packerware Corp. v. B & R PLASTICS, INC. · filed 1998-07-24(b)

Under Kansas law, the long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a party to the extent allowed by the Constitution of the United States.

Kansas’s long-arm statute reaches as far as due process permits, so a court may proceed directly to the constitutional jurisdiction analysis.

Marketing Group, Inc. v. Success Development International, Inc. · filed 1999-02-18(b)

“In Kansas, these inquiries are for all intents and purposes the same because the Kansas long-arm statue, K.S.A. § 60-308(b), has been liberally construed by the Kansas courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause.” ... The court, therefore, proceeds directly to the constitutional issue.

Section 60-308(b) extends personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process.

Custom Energy, LLC v. Conservation Group · filed 2000-03-21(b)

“In Kansas, these inquiries are for all intents and purposes the same because the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. § 60-308(b), has been liberally construed by the Kansas courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause.” ... The court, therefore, proceeds directly to the constitutional issue.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose Kansas business activities or contract with a Kansas resident, performed partly in Kansas, give rise to the claim.

Sprint Corp. v. DeAngelo · filed 1998-06-19(b)(1), (b)(5)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Sprint has established a prima facie case that defendant’s conduct falls within the provisions of both K.S.A. § 60—308(b)(1) and K.S.A § 60-308(b)(5), and turns to the question whether defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Kansas to comport with constitutional due process.

Section 60-308(b)(5) permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who enters an express or implied contract with a Kansas resident to be performed in whole or in part in Kansas.

Bradshaw v. Baptiste · filed 1998-08-12(b)(5)

This court has little difficulty in finding that an actual or implied contract existed between the defendants and the plaintiffs. For this reason, a jurisdictional base exists for both Baptiste defendants under K.S.A. 60-308(b)(5).

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident joint sponsor when its Kansas-related business activities give rise to the claim and jurisdiction satisfies due process.

Flannagan v. Bader · filed 1995-10-19(b)(1), (b)(5)

In Kansas, these inquiries are for all intents and purposes the same because the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. 60-308(b), has been liberally construed by the Kansas courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause.

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident whose purposeful business and contract contacts with Kansas give rise to the claim and satisfy due process.

St. Francis Mercantile Equity Exchange, Inc. v. Newton · filed 2000-02-11(b)(1), (b)(5)

We find the trial court did not err in subjecting Newton to in personam jurisdiction in Kansas under both K.S.A. 60-308(b)(l) and (b)(5).

Section 60-308(b) does not support specific personal jurisdiction based on a nonresident’s Kansas contacts when those contacts are only tangentially related to a claim arising from another party’s default.

SBKC Service Corp. v. 1111 Prospect Partners, L.P. · filed 1997-05-28(b)

Thus, the court must first address whether the Jefferys’ Note and payment of two months interest to extend the Note in order to prevent foreclosure provides sufficient minimum contacts with this forum to warrant the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over them in this matter. The inherent flaw in the plaintiffs argument is that although the Jefferys’ forum related activities are tangentially related to the Note, the plaintiffs cause of action arises from 1111 LP defaulting on the Note, not from any conduct by the Jefferys.

Section 60-308(b) requires the defendant’s conduct to fall within Kansas’s long-arm statute and the exercise of personal jurisdiction to satisfy due process.

SF HOTEL COMPANY, LP v. Energy Investments, Inc. · filed 1997-11-19(b)

SF Hotels fails to demonstrate either that the defendant’s conduct falls within the scope of the long-arm statute, or that an exercise of jurisdiction under the statute would be consistent with due process.

Section 60-308(b) requires a claim to arise from an enumerated act in Kansas and does not authorize general jurisdiction.

Three Ten Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1997-07-11(b)

K.S.A. 60-308(b) does not provide for the exercise of general jurisdiction by Kansas courts.

Section 60-308(b) reaches nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by due process, but jurisdiction requires sufficient minimum contacts with Kansas.

Whittaker v. Medical Mutual of Ohio · filed 2000-04-24(b)

The first step is to determine whether defendants’ conduct falls within any of the provisions of the Kansas long arm statute, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-308(b). ... The Tenth Circuit has stated that “these inquiries are essentially the same, because ‘[t]he Kansas long arm statute is liberally construed to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.’ ” ... Because the defendants do not have sufficient minimum contacts, the court finds it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Section 60-308 authorizes personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Constitution.

Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. v. The University of Toronto Innovations Foundation · filed 2002-07-23

The Kansas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the constitution.

Section 60-308(d) preserves other lawful methods of service and traditional bases of personal jurisdiction when the long arm statute does not apply.

Novak v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance · filed 2001-08-03(d)

K.S.A. 60-308(d) states: “Nothing contained in this section limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner provided by law.” This subsection recognizes that the long arm statute covers only certain situations. As a result, when the long arm statute does not cover a particular situation, resort must be had to the traditional bases of jurisdiction such as citizenship; domicile and residence; or consent, actual or implied.

Section 60-308 does not supply personal jurisdiction in workers compensation proceedings; jurisdiction must arise from the Workers Compensation Act.

Abbey v. Cleveland Inspection Services, Inc. · filed 2002-01-18

Considering the specific statutory grant of jurisdiction, that authority must arise from the Act itself and not from the long arm statute because the rules of civil procedure are not applicable in workers compensation proceedings.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by federal due process.

Rainy Day Books, Inc. v. Rainy Day Books & Café, L.L.C. · filed 2002-02-05(b)

Because the Kansas long-arm statute is construed liberally to allow jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process, the court proceeds directly to the constitutional issue.

Section 60-308(b) is construed liberally to permit personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent allowed by due process.

Merriman v. Crompton Corp. · filed 2006-11-09(b)

In Kansas, the long arm statute is construed liberally to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent allowed by the Due Process Clause.

Section 60-308(b) authorizes personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Constitution.

Toytrackerz LLC v. American Plastic Equipment, Inc. · filed 2009-05-06(b)

The Kansas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the constitution.

Section 60-308(b) requires a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that a nonresident defendant falls within a listed ground for Kansas personal jurisdiction.

Richardson v. Fowler Envelope Co., LLC · filed 2003-10-27(b)

Although it appears that plaintiff might rely upon subsection (1) “transaction of any business within the state” or (2) “commission of a tortious act within this state,” plaintiff does not identify any statutory basis for personal jurisdiction in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not made a made a prima facie showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over St. Louis Envelope under K.S.A. § 60-308(b).

Subsection (b) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by due process.

Multi-Media International, LLC v. Promag Retail Services, LLC · filed 2004-11-02(b)

However, “these inquiries are for all intents and purposes the same because the Kansas long-arm statute ... has been liberally construed by the Kansas courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause.”

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Hutton & Hutton Law Firm, LLC v. Girardi & Keese · filed 2015-03-31(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas’ long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Frickey v. Thompson · filed 2015-09-30(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas’ long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit any exercise of jurisdiction that is consistent with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Inspired By Design, LLC v. Sammy's Sew Shop, LLC · filed 2016-08-03

Kansas’ long-arm statute .is construed liberally to permit exercise of jurisdiction in every situation that is consistent with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308(b) extends personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process.

McNeal v. Zobrist · filed 2005-04-18(b)

In Kansas, analyzing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction involves an inquiry as to: (1) whether the court has personal jurisdiction under the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. § 60-308(b); and (2) whether the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process. ... However, “these inquiries are for all intents and purposes the same because the Kansas long-arm statute ... has been liberally construed by the Kansas courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the due process clause.” ... The court, therefore, proceeds directly to the constitutional issue.

Section 60-308(b) reaches nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by due process.

Sunlight Saunas, Inc. v. Sundance Sauna, Inc. · filed 2006-03-15(b)

The Court applies a two-part test to analyze Rule 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. First, defendants’ conduct must fall within a provision of the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. § 60-308. Kansas courts construe the long-arm statute liberally to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the limitations of due process.

Section 60-308(b)(2) permits jurisdiction over a claim arising outside Kansas only when the defendant has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with Kansas consistent with due process.

Martin-Manatee Power Partners, LLC v. Peerless Manufacturing Co. · filed 2010-06-18(b)(2)

Our analysis leads us to conclude that Controls has not engaged in a level of business activity in Kansas to warrant our courts extending jurisdiction over it for a transaction that occurred beyond our borders. Controls’ contacts with Kansas have not been sufficiently “substantial, continuous and systematic” so as to “support jurisdiction consistent with the constitutions of the United States and of this state.” K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 60-308(b)(2). The district court did not err in sustaining Controls’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 60-308(b) provides for specific jurisdiction, not general jurisdiction.

Kearns v. New York Community Bank · filed 2017-03-24(b)

Moreover, Kearns' reliance on K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-308(b) in arguing that the district court had general jurisdiction over NYCB based on its substantial ongoing business is also misplaced because the statute's use is limited to specific jurisdiction.

Section 60-308(b) extends personal jurisdiction to the limits of federal due process, so courts may proceed directly to the due process analysis.

Ward Kraft, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-10-25(b)

Kansas’ long-arm statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b), extends the reach of Kansas courts to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the federal constitution.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by federal due process, so no separate Kansas statutory analysis is needed.

Haarslev, Inc. v. Muir · filed 2024-03-25(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. See Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop., 17 F.3d 1302, 1304–05 (10th Cir. 1994); see also K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(L). Accordingly, the Court need not conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law, and instead may proceed directly to the due process inquiry under federal law.

Section 60-308 authorizes Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process.

Huth v. Midea America Corp. · filed 2025-09-05(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas law authorizes courts to exercise jurisdiction “to the full extent permitted by due process.” Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop., 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Volt Delta Res., Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Kan. 1987)); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b)(1)(L), (b)(2).

Section 60-308 permits Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by due process.

Seaboard Foods, LLC v. Cloverdale Foods Company · filed 2026-02-03(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas law authorizes courts to exercise “jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process[.]” Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Co-op., 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Volt Delta Res., Inc. v. Devine, 740 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Kan. 1987)); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b)(1)(L), (b)(2).

Section 60-308 permits Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the limits of federal due process.

Wells v. Facebook Incorporated · filed 2019-12-18

Kansas’ long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit exercise of jurisdiction in every situation consistent with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308(b) extends Kansas courts’ personal jurisdiction as far as federal due process permits.

Ferren v. Westmed Incorporated · filed 2019-12-23(b)

Kansas’s long-arm statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b), extends the reach of Kansas courts to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the federal constitution. ... Consequently, the court may skip the state statutory analysis and proceed directly to a determination of whether the court’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with the principles of due process.

Section 60-308(b) extends Kansas courts’ personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by federal due process.

TAFS, Inc. v. Apex Capital Corp. · filed 2020-01-27(b)

Kansas’s long-arm statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b), extends the reach of Kansas courts to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the federal constitution.

Section 60-308 is construed to reach as far as the United States Constitution permits, so it requires no separate inquiry when deciding personal jurisdiction.

Warren v. University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana · filed 2020-03-04

In practice, the Kansas long-arm statute is construed to be consistent with the United States Constitution; so no separate inquiry is required.

Section 60-308 permits Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Geico General Insurance Company v. O. · filed 2021-10-20(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

But Kansas’s long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit any exercise of jurisdiction that comports with the United States Constitution. Id. at 1305; see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60- 308(b)(1)(L) & (b)(2). Thus, it’s unnecessary to conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law. Instead, the court may proceed directly to the due process inquiry.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by federal due process.

Reverse My Fees, LLC v. True POS Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-10-20(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by federal due process, so a separate Kansas statutory analysis is unnecessary.

Haarslev, Inc. v. Christensen Machine, Inc. Case Consolidated for Discovery All Non-Dispositive fi · filed 2024-03-18(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. See Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop., 17 F.3d 1302, 1304–05 (10th Cir. 1994); see also K.S.A. § 60-308(b)(1)(L). Accordingly, the Court need not conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law, and instead may proceed directly to the due process inquiry under federal law.

Kansas’s long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction to the limits of federal due process, so a separate Kansas-law analysis is unnecessary.

Huth v. Midea America Corp. · filed 2024-03-26(b)(1)(L) & (b)(2)

But Kansas’s long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit any exercise of jurisdiction that comports with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by federal due process, so a separate analysis under Kansas law is unnecessary.

Bank of Commerce & Trust Company v. BancCentral National Association · filed 2025-02-04(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. ... Accordingly, the Court need not conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law, and instead may proceed directly to the due process inquiry under federal law.

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Ross v. Jenkins · filed 2020-03-16(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas’ long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit exercise of jurisdiction in every situation permitted by the United States Constitution. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp. v. Kootenai Elec. Coop., 17 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-308(b)(1)(L) & (b)(2). Thus, the court need not conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law because the “first, statutory, inquiry effectively collapses into the second, constitutional, analysis.” Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070 (10th Cir. 2008).

Section 60-308 permits personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by federal due process, so a court need not conduct a separate Kansas law analysis.

Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc., The v. Harbinger, LLC · filed 2021-07-22(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Kansas’s long-arm statute is construed liberally to permit any exercise of jurisdiction that is consistent with the United States Constitution. Id. at 1305; see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60- 308(b)(1)(L) & (b)(2). Thus, it’s unnecessary for the court to conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law, and instead, the court may proceed directly to the due process inquiry.

Section 60-308(b) does not apply to workers compensation claims because they are administrative actions rather than civil lawsuits.

White v. RGV Pizza Hut · filed 2021-06-11(b)

The long-arm statute, however, does not apply to workers compensation claims, since they are distinct administrative actions brought under the Workers Compensation Act rather than civil lawsuits.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(B) does not confer jurisdiction for alleged tortious conduct that was neither committed in nor aimed at Kansas, and subsection (b)(1)(L) requires sufficient Kansas contacts consistent with due process.

L.S. v. C.S. · filed 2022-11-10(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(L)

As a result, K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-308(b)(1)(B) did not provide a basis for the district court to exercise jurisdiction over C.S. and E.S. ... In sum, we find the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over C.S. and E.S. under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-308(b)(1)(L).

Section 60-308 permits Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the limits of federal due process.

Skyline Trucking, Inc. v. Freightliner Truck Center Companies · filed 2023-07-28(b)(1)(L), (b)(2)

Thus, it’s unnecessary to conduct a separate state law analysis and, instead, the court may proceed directly to the due process inquiry.

Section 60-308(b) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

Salazar-Ruiz v. Cox · filed 2024-12-13(b)

Courts construe the Kansas statute liberally to permit any exercise of ... jurisdiction permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits Kansas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by federal due process.

Haarslev, Inc. v. Tom's Metal Enterprises, LLC · filed 2024-03-11(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by due process, making a separate Kansas-law analysis unnecessary.

Branson v. Shawnee County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2025-06-27(b)(1)(L)

Accordingly, the Court need not conduct a separate personal jurisdiction analysis under Kansas law and may proceed directly to the due process inquiry.

Section 60-308(b)(1)(L) permits personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the United States Constitution.

Conway · filed 2026-05-20(b)(1)(L)

The Kansas long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the United States Constitution.

Section 60-308(b) may establish personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, but it does not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Clelland · filed 2025-11-19(b)

Plaintiff also asserts in his Response that subject matter jurisdiction over Offutt is satisfied under K.S.A. 60-308(b), the Kansas long-arm statute. While the Kansas long-arm statute might establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Offutt, it does not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Offutt.

Section 60-308 permits a nonresident plaintiff to sue in Kansas when its jurisdictional requirements and due process are satisfied.

Volt Delta Resources, Inc. v. Devine · filed 1987-07-17

While the policy of the long arm statute may be primarily to serve the interest of resident plaintiffs in obtaining jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, there is nothing in the statute which precludes a nonresident from bringing an action in Kansas where the statutory and due process requirements are met.

Section 60-308(b)(4) permits personal jurisdiction over an agent who contracts to insure a risk located in Kansas.

Stephenson v. Barringer · filed 1991-02-12(b)(4)

Some of the risk insured resided in Kansas. Therefore, we conclude that defendant Barringer is amenable to service under K.S.A. 60-308(b)(4).