KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov


 
   

 




17-1262.

History: L. 1957, ch. 145, § 11; L. 1967, ch. 122, § 2; L. 1969, ch. 121, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 131, § 1; L. 1980, ch. 78, § 1; L. 1981, ch. 90, § 17; L. 1982, ch. 97, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 99, § 2; L. 1984, ch. 85, § 1; L. 1985, ch. 89, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 332, § 16; L. 1991, ch. 76, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 226, § 4; L. 1994, ch. 42, § 3; L. 1996, ch. 69, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 62, § 7; L. 1998, ch. 59, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 52, § 3; L. 2002, ch. 158, § 17; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. What constitutes "isolated transaction" and effect of administrative regulation K.S.A. 81-1-1 considered. Allen v. Schauf, 202 Kan. 348, 353, 355, 356, 358, 359, 449 P.2d 1010.

2. Cited; exemption for "commercial paper" in K.S.A. 17-1261 construed. State v. Hodge, 204 Kan. 98, 105, 460 P.2d 596.

3. Transaction exempt under this section. Equity Investors, Inc. v. Ammest Group, Inc., 1 Kan. App. 2d 276, 279, 563 P.2d 531.

4. Cited; directors' strict liability to purchasers of unregistered securities sold in violation of K.S.A. 17-1268 noted; must prove absence of knowledge. Taylor v. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd., 244 Kan. 126, 129, 766 P.2d 805 (1988).

5. Burden of proof of any exemption is on party claiming benefit of such exemption. State v. Kershner, 15 Kan. App. 2d 17, 18, 801 P.2d 68 (1990).

6. Exemptions herein constitute affirmative defenses; no unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 737, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).

7. Convictions under K.S.A. 17-1254, 17-1255 upheld; sufficient evidence to find remuneration paid for soliciting investors. State v. Stuber, 25 Kan. App. 2d 254, 263, 265, 962 P.2d 1104 (1998).


 



This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov