History:
L. 1957, ch. 145, § 2; L. 1979, ch. 61, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 91, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 14; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 4; L. 1996, ch. 69, § 2; L. 1999, ch. 4, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 117, § 1; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cause of action under Blue Sky Law cannot be first raised on appeal. Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902, 904.
2. Appellate court may consider issues not raised at trial or on appeal where necessary to serve interests of justice or prevent denial of fundamental rights. State v. Puckett, 6 Kan. App. 2d 688, 689, 705, 706, 634 P.2d 144 (1981); aff'd, 230 Kan. 596, 597, 640 P.2d 1198 (1981).
3. Under facts of case alleged investment contract not subject to act. State ex rel. Owens v. Colby, 231 Kan. 498, 499, 646 P.2d 1071 (1982).
5. Information charging crime of securities fraud in language herein sufficient. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 749, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).
6. Claim by minority shareholders against majority shareholders lacked element of justifiable reliance. Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1127, 1132, 1156, 1157 (1992).
7. Officer of accommodating broker had no duty to advise plaintiff regarding prospects of stock but did have duty to disclose that he purchased shares on his own account precluding summary judgment. Arst v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 86 F.3d 973, 976, 980 (1996).
8. Material fact regarding whether employer offered security to employee for employment by untruthful statements precluded summary judgment. Davsko v. Golden Harvest Products, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1467, 1477 (1997).
9. Defendant's failure to disclose criminal conviction amounted to omission of material fact hereunder. State v. Stuber, 25 Kan. App. 2d 254, 257, 258, 962 P.2d 1104 (1998).
10. Sufficient evidence at preliminary examination to bind defendant over for trial on securities fraud. State v. Ismaili, 269 Kan. 389, 7 P.3d 236 (2000).
11. State not preempted by federal law from prosecution where defendant was involved in sale of securities as well as commodities transactions; defendant required by section to disclose past crimes, civil judgments and tax liens. State v. Stuber, 27 Kan. App. 2d 160, 1 P.3d 333 (2000).
12. Theft of funds from client's nondiscretionary account was theft but not securities fraud. State v. Ameen, 27 Kan. App. 2d 181, 1 P.3d 330 (2000).
13. Crime was complete when victim's funds were converted; defendant properly sentenced under penalty in effect at that time. State v. Honton, 32 Kan. App. 2d 623, 87 P.3d 328 (2004).
14. Kansas courts may rely on federal securities cases for authority in interpreting Kansas Securities Act. State v. Mehling, 34 Kan. App. 2d 122, 115 P.3d 771 (2005).
15. Cited; fiduciary relationship abuse generally not grounds for upward departure sentence for security fraud conviction. State v. Bryant, 40 Kan. App. 2d 308, 312, 314, 315, 317, 191 P.3d 350 (2008).
Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Kan. 1992). · cites it 10ד§ 77 /(2), and K.S.A. §§ 17-1253(a), -1268(a). The Comeaus further allege that this same conduct constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Comeaus; a breach of the stock sale agreement; and fraudulent inducement to purchase and close on the stock sale of RCSA.”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 18דStuber was found guilty of violating K.S.A. 17-1253 (Ensley), which prohibits unlawful acts in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 8ד17-1267), and seven counts of unlawful acts in connection with the sale of a security (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1253 and 1979 Supp. 17-1267) [referred to interchangeably as failure to disclose a material fact or the "fraud" counts].”
State v. Hood, 873 P.2d 1355 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 13דSuch conduct is prohibited in connection with the sale of securities under a different section (K.S.A. 17-1253[a][2]) of the statute under which Hood is charged.”
Woods v. Homes & Structures of Pittsburg, Kansas, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 1270 (D. Kan. 1980). · cites it 2דCount III Violation of the Kansas Securities Act, K.S.A. 17-1253. Count IV Violation of the Kansas Securities Act, K.”
Arst v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 871 F. Supp. 1370 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 6ד10b-10(a)(7)(i), and the Kansas Securities Act, specifically, K.S.A. § 17-1253 5 . The defendants subsequently filed this motion for summary judgment.”
Rodger M. Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., & Odis E. Shoaf, Jr., 86 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2ד240-10b-5, and “the Kansas Securities Act, and specifically K.S.A. § 17-1253.” (Amend.Compl.1T 12.). Rule 10b-5 provides in pertinent part: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly .”
State v. Stuber, 962 P.2d 1104 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6ד" *257 The charge against defendant, if true, is a violation of K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 17-1253, which provides in pertinent part: "(a) It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly, to: .”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. 1982). “” The convictions on the other fourteen counts were affirmed. The basis for reversal on the seven fraud counts was twofold: (1) That the trial court abused its discretion in limiting defense counsel in his cross-examination of the State’s expert witnesses; and (2) that the…”
State Ex Rel. Mays v. Ridenhour, 811 P.2d 1220 (Kan. 1991). “17-1254, which requires securities salespersons to register, and (3) K.S.A. 17-1253, which prohibits material misstatements of fact in selling securities.”
Davsko v. Golden Harvest Prods., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1467 (D. Kan. 1997). · cites it 2דSee K.S.A. §§ 17-1253, 17-1268. Based on plaintiffs same alleged admissions in his deposition, defendants contend that plaintiff has not established that defendants made any untrue statement or material omission.”
State v. Atteberry, 239 P.3d 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2דMore specifically, Atteberry was charged with 7 counts of securities fraud in violation of K.S.A. 17-1253; 9 counts of offer or sale of unregistered securities in violation of K.”
Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Kan. 1992). “§ 77 /(2), and K.S.A. §§ 17-1253(a), -1268(a). The Comeaus further allege that this same conduct constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Comeaus; a breach of the stock sale agreement; and fraudulent inducement to purchase and close on the stock sale of RCSA.”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “Stuber was found guilty of violating K.S.A. 17-1253 (Ensley), which prohibits unlawful acts in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “17-1267), and seven counts of unlawful acts in connection with the sale of a security (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1253 and 1979 Supp. 17-1267) [referred to interchangeably as failure to disclose a material fact or the "fraud" counts].”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “Stuber was found guilty of violating K.S.A. 17-1253 (Ensley), which prohibits unlawful acts in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.”
State v. Stuber, 962 P.2d 1104 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “" *257 The charge against defendant, if true, is a violation of K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 17-1253, which provides in pertinent part: "(a) It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly, to: .”
State v. Puckett, 640 P.2d 1198 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “17-1267), and seven counts of unlawful acts in connection with the sale of a security (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1253 and 1979 Supp. 17-1267) [referred to interchangeably as failure to disclose a material fact or the "fraud" counts].”
State v. Hood, 873 P.2d 1355 (Kan. 1994). “Such conduct is prohibited in connection with the sale of securities under a different section (K.S.A. 17-1253[a][2]) of the statute under which Hood is charged.”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “Stuber was found guilty of violating K.S.A. 17-1253 (Ensley), which prohibits unlawful acts in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.”
State v. Stuber, 1 P.3d 333 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “Stuber was found guilty of violating K.S.A. 17-1253 (Ensley), which prohibits unlawful acts in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities.”
State v. Hood, 873 P.2d 1355 (Kan. 1994). “Such conduct is prohibited in connection with the sale of securities under a different section (K.S.A. 17-1253[a][2]) of the statute under which Hood is charged.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.