K.S.A. » Chapter 17
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 17-1262 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: K.S.A. § 17-1262 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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§ 3; L. 1996, ch. 69, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 62, § 7; L. 1998, ch. 59, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 52, § 3; L. 2002, ch. 158, § 17; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.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).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1970–2010 · leading case: Klein v. Oppenheimer & Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Klein v. Oppenheimer & Co. (2006) kan · cites it 11× “17-1261 and K.S.A. 17-1262. An action to enforce the Kansas Securities Act may be prosecuted by the Kansas Securities Commissioner under K.”
Burge v. Frey (1982) ksd · cites it 4× “It appears that the transaction at issue in this case is exempt from regulation because it involves an issue of stock of a domestic corporation to less than 15 incorporators, Kan.Stat. Ann. § 17-1262(h) (1981), or it is a sale by a domestic corporation to not more than 15…”
Norden v. Friedman (1988) mo · cites it 2× “1984); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 17-1262(a) (Supp.1983). The classification meets the rational basis test.”
State v. Stuber (1998) kanctapp · cites it 6× “Registration is not required of a broker/dealer or of a stock if the transaction is exempt under K.S.A 1997 Supp. 17-1262. K.S.A. 1997 Supp.”
State Ex Rel. Mays v. Ridenhour (1991) kan “17-1261 or when sold in transactions exempt under K.S.A. 17-1262, unless such security is registered by notification under K.”
State v. Atteberry (2010) kanctapp · cites it 2× “Was Counsel Ineffective for Not Advising Atteberry He Had an Affirmative Defense Based on the Commercial Paper Exemption? The Act in effect when Atteberry allegedly violated its provisions made it unlawful for any person to solicit, offer, or sell any security in Kansas unless…”
State v. Ribadeneira (1991) kanctapp · cites it 2× “*737 WAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SHIFTED TO THE DEFENDANT? K.S.A. 17-1262 lists 17 types of transactions which are exempted from the provisions of K.”
Taylor v. Perdition Minerals Group, Ltd. (1988) kan “The sale of these 400,000 shares of stock of Perdition was not the sale of an exempt security under K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 17-1261, nor was it an exempt transaction under K.”
State v. Kershner (1990) kanctapp “K.S.A. 17-1262 provides some 18 types of transactions exempted from the provisions of K.”
Carney v. Hanson Oil Co., Inc. (1985) mo “1984); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 17-1262(a) (Supp.1983). The classification meets the rational basis test.”
Gilbert v. Nixon (1970) ca10 “Section 78j provides: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails * * * (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national…”
Sheldon v. Vermonty (2004) ca10 · cites it 2× “The only affirmative defenses to this claim asserted by defendants in the pretrial order had been that the securities were exempt from registration requirements pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-1262 (c) and (h). See R.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 17-1262(1) — 1 case
State v. Stuber (1998) kanctapp “Registration is not required of a broker/dealer or of a stock if the transaction is exempt under K.S.A 1997 Supp. 17-1262. K.S.A. 1997 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 17-1262(a) — 2 cases
Norden v. Friedman (1988) mo “1984); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 17-1262(a) (Supp.1983). The classification meets the rational basis test.”
Carney v. Hanson Oil Co., Inc. (1985) mo “1984); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 17-1262(a) (Supp.1983). The classification meets the rational basis test.”
— K.S.A. § 17-1262(b) — 1 case
Klein v. Oppenheimer & Co. (2006) kan “17-1261 and K.S.A. 17-1262. An action to enforce the Kansas Securities Act may be prosecuted by the Kansas Securities Commissioner under K.”
— K.S.A. § 17-1262(h) — 1 case
Burge v. Frey (1982) ksd “It appears that the transaction at issue in this case is exempt from regulation because it involves an issue of stock of a domestic corporation to less than 15 incorporators, Kan.Stat. Ann. § 17-1262(h) (1981), or it is a sale by a domestic corporation to not more than 15…”
— K.S.A. § 17-1262(m) — 2 cases
Burge v. Frey (1982) ksd “It appears that the transaction at issue in this case is exempt from regulation because it involves an issue of stock of a domestic corporation to less than 15 incorporators, Kan.Stat. Ann. § 17-1262(h) (1981), or it is a sale by a domestic corporation to not more than 15…”
Gilbert v. Nixon (1970) ca10
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.