Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Kansas, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum is inconvenient for the parties or witnesses, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency by considering various private and public interest factors. While a Kansas resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, it is not absolute. A defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice by showing that the balance of private interests (such as the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the accessibility of evidence) and public interests (including court congestion, the local interest in having localized disputes resolved at home, and the familiarity of the forum with the law that needs to be applied) strongly favor another forum. The court will weigh these factors and may dismiss the case if it finds that another forum is significantly more appropriate for resolving the dispute.