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

K.S.A. § 17-1272 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: K.S.A. § 17-1272 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

17-1272.

History: L. 1957, ch. 145, § 20; L. 1997, ch. 62, § 12; Repealed, L. 2004, ch. 154, § 65; July 1, 2005.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Burden on state to prove all elements of crime charged; burden of showing transaction as exempt on defendant. State v. Kershner, 15 Kan. App. 2d 17, 19, 20, 801 P.2d 68 (1990).

2. Exemptions listed in K.S.A. 17-1262 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).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1990–2010 · leading case: State v. Kershner
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kershner (1990) kanctapp · cites it 4× “Did the trial court err in ruling K.S.A. 17-1272 does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof? Kershner argues K.”
State v. Atteberry (2010) kanctapp · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 17-1272; cf. State v. Kershner, 15 Kan.”
Klein v. Oppenheimer & Co. (2006) kan “See K.S.A. 17-1272. Klein contends that Oppenheimer did not establish that the securities were sold by L.”
State v. Ribadeneira (1991) kanctapp “K.S.A. 17-1272 provides that the State need not negate, in the indictment or information, any of these exemptions.”
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.