Graham v. Herring

2 Citing cases

  1. Graham v. Herring

    297 Kan. 847 (Kan. 2013)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–225—which requires a motion for substitution of a party be made within a reasonable time—necessarily gives rise to limited jurisdiction for the court to consider the issue of whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time

    The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding that a determination of whether a motion for substitution has been made within a “reasonable time” requires consideration of the circumstances of each case, including, (1) the diligence of the party seeking substitution; (2) whether any other party would be prejudiced by any delay; and (3) whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or defense has merit. Graham v. Herring, 44 Kan.App.2d 1131, 1133–34, 242 P.3d 253 (2010).

  2. Mathis v. State

    295 P.3d 1054 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013)

    The issue ultimately turned on whether Emery's widow sought to substitute the Estate as a party within a reasonable time. See Graham v. Herring, 44 Kan.App.2d 1131, Syl. ¶ 1, 242 P.3d 253 (2010), rev. granted 293 Kan. –––– (October 7, 2011). According to Graham, there is no bright-line test for determining a reasonable time within which to seek a substitution of parties.