In Re the Care & Treatment of Hunt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that changes to a court’s jurisdiction generally are applied to pending cases
• finding, in the exact same statute as the 2014 version, that the 60-day time limit was only directory
• relying on K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 59-29a01 to hold that the 60-day time limit contained in K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 59-29a06 did not impose a jurisdictional bar to cases brought outside the time limit because the timing element of the statute was directory, not mandatory
• courts may rely on a legislative body's declaration but must do so cautiously if the declaration is not included in the amendment's text
• courts may rely on a legislative body’s declaration but must do so cautiously if the declaration is not included in the amendment’s text
• \none of the time limits in the SVPA is intended now or ever was intended to be mandatory\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).