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

K.S.A. § 17-6510 (2026)

Stockholder's right of inspection; refusal by corporation to permit inspection; director's right of inspection

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

17-6510. Stockholder's right of inspection; refusal by corporation to permit inspection; director's right of inspection. (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Stockholder" means a holder of record of stock in a stock corporation, or a person who is the beneficial owner of shares of such stock held either in a voting trust or by a nominee on behalf of such person;

(2) "under oath" includes statements the declarant affirms to be true under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States or any state; and

(3) "subsidiary" means any entity directly or indirectly owned, in whole or in part, by the corporation of which the stockholder is a stockholder and over the affairs of which the corporation directly or indirectly exercises control, and includes, without limitation, corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, statutory trusts and/or joint ventures.

(b) Any stockholder, in person or by attorney or other agent, upon written demand under oath stating the purpose thereof, shall have the right during the usual hours for business to inspect for any proper purpose, and to make copies and extracts from:

(1) The corporation's stock ledger, a list of its stockholders, and its other books and records; and

(2) a subsidiary's books and records, to the extent that: (A) The corporation has actual possession and control of such records of such subsidiary; or (B) the corporation could obtain such records through the exercise of control over such subsidiary, provided that as of the date of the making of the demand: (i) Stockholder inspection of such books and records of the subsidiary would not constitute a breach of an agreement between the corporation or the subsidiary and a person or persons not affiliated with the corporation; and (ii) the subsidiary would not have the right under the law applicable to it to deny the corporation access to such books and records upon demand by the corporation. In every instance where the stockholder is other than a record holder of stock in a stock corporation or a member of a nonstock corporation, the demand under oath shall state the person's status as a stockholder, be accompanied by documentary evidence of beneficial ownership of the stock and state that such documentary evidence is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be. A proper purpose shall mean a purpose reasonably related to such person's interest as a stockholder. In every instance where an attorney or other agent shall be the person who seeks the right to inspection, the demand under oath shall be accompanied by a power of attorney or such other writing which authorizes the attorney or other agent to so act on behalf of the stockholder. The demand under oath shall be directed to the corporation at its registered office in this state or at its principal place of business.

(c) If the corporation, or an officer or agent thereof, refuses to permit an inspection sought by a stockholder or attorney or other agent acting for the stockholder pursuant to subsection (b) or does not reply to the demand within five business days after the demand has been made, the stockholder may apply to the district court for an order to compel such inspection. The district court is hereby vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not the person seeking inspection is entitled to the inspection sought. The court may summarily order the corporation to permit the stockholder to inspect the corporation's stock ledger, an existing list of stockholders, and its other books and records, and to make copies or extracts therefrom; or the court may order the corporation to furnish to the stockholder a list of its stockholders as of a specific date on condition that the stockholder first pay to the corporation the reasonable cost of obtaining and furnishing such list and on such other conditions as the court deems appropriate. Where the stockholder seeks to inspect the corporation's books and records, other than its stock ledger or list of stockholders, such stockholder shall first establish that:

(1) Such stockholder is a stockholder;

(2) such stockholder has complied with this section respecting the form and manner of making demand for inspection of such documents; and

(3) the inspection such stockholder seeks is for a proper purpose. Where the stockholder seeks to inspect the corporation's stock ledger or list of stockholders and establishes that such stockholder is a stockholder and has complied with this section respecting the form and manner of making demand for inspection of such documents, the burden of proof shall be upon the corporation to establish that the inspection such stockholder seeks is for an improper purpose. The court, in its discretion, may prescribe any limitations or conditions with reference to the inspection, or award such other or further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The court may order books, documents and records, pertinent extracts therefrom, or duly authenticated copies thereof, to be brought within this state and kept in this state upon such terms and conditions as the order may prescribe.

(d) Any director shall have the right to examine the corporation's stock ledger, a list of its stockholders and its other books and records for a purpose reasonably related to the director's position as a director. The district court is hereby vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a director is entitled to the inspection sought. The court may summarily order the corporation to permit the director to inspect any and all books and records, the stock ledger and the list of stockholders and to make copies or extracts therefrom. The burden of proof shall be upon the corporation to establish that the inspection such director seeks is for an improper purpose. The court may, in its discretion, prescribe any limitations or conditions with reference to the inspection, or award such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

History: L. 1972, ch. 52, § 63; L. 1988, ch. 99, § 28; Revived and amended, L. 1988, ch. 100, § 28; L. 2004, ch. 143, § 35; L. 2016, ch. 110, § 54; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Arctic Fin. Corp. v. OTR Express, Inc., 38 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arctic Fin. Corp. v. OTR Express, Inc., 38 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 17× “In this stockholder’s action under K.S.A. 17-6510, for inspection of corporate books and records, the district court dismissed Arctic’s case following OTR’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Arctic failed to prove a proper purpose for inspection.”
Murray v. Miracorp, Inc., 545 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2024). · cites it 5× “But here, we know the Murrays could have prevailed on a shareholder inspection lawsuit under K.S.A. 17-6510 at any relevant time, given their demonstrated success in maintaining such an action in 2016.”
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 747 F. Supp. 567 (W.D. Mo. 1990). · cites it 3× “This demand was made pursuant to K.S.A. § 17-6510. 3 On July 31, 1990, KG & E filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against Heywood Davis and KCP & L alleging (1) that KCP & L’s offer is illegal under both federal and Kansas state law and,…”
Fitzpatrick v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 272 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “8 § 220(d); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-6510 (d). . Plaintiffs appear to argue also, in a less ambitious vein, that Fitzpatrick should at least be able to access documents that he once authored or received or otherwise viewed while serving as President and Board member.”
Ihrig v. Frontier Equity Exch. Ass'n, 128 P.3d 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “In June 2002, the Ihrigs made written demand pursuant to K.S.A. 17-6510 for access to Frontier s records that disclosed the salaries and benefits of all Frontier employees.”
Skipton v. RevHoney. Inc. (D. Kan. 2020). · cites it 4× “) Count 1 is based on the right provided in K.S.A. 17-6510 for stockholders to inspect corporate records.”
Dorfman v. MGP Ingredients, Inc. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 4× “In Kansas, it’s Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-6510 . As in Delaware, the Kansas statute permits a stockholder, “upon written demand under oath stating the purpose thereof,” to “inspect for any proper purpose .”
Murray v. Miracorp, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Murray hereby makes a formal demand pursuant to K.S.A. § 17-6510 to inspect the books and records of Miracorp, Inc.”
Mid-Continent Anesthesiology, Chtd. v. Bassell (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 17-6510(b)(1), (c). MCAC is a closely held Kansas corporation whose shareholders are all practicing physicians.”
K.S.A. § 17-6510(b): 4 cases
Arctic Fin. Corp. v. OTR Express, Inc., 38 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2002). “In this stockholder’s action under K.S.A. 17-6510, for inspection of corporate books and records, the district court dismissed Arctic’s case following OTR’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Arctic failed to prove a proper purpose for inspection.”
Murray v. Miracorp, Inc., 545 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2024). “But here, we know the Murrays could have prevailed on a shareholder inspection lawsuit under K.S.A. 17-6510 at any relevant time, given their demonstrated success in maintaining such an action in 2016.”
Ihrig v. Frontier Equity Exch. Ass'n, 128 P.3d 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “In June 2002, the Ihrigs made written demand pursuant to K.S.A. 17-6510 for access to Frontier s records that disclosed the salaries and benefits of all Frontier employees.”
Skipton v. RevHoney. Inc. (D. Kan. 2020). “) Count 1 is based on the right provided in K.S.A. 17-6510 for stockholders to inspect corporate records.”
K.S.A. § 17-6510(b)(1): 2 cases
Murray v. Miracorp, Inc., 545 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2024). “But here, we know the Murrays could have prevailed on a shareholder inspection lawsuit under K.S.A. 17-6510 at any relevant time, given their demonstrated success in maintaining such an action in 2016.”
Mid-Continent Anesthesiology, Chtd. v. Bassell (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 17-6510(b)(1), (c). MCAC is a closely held Kansas corporation whose shareholders are all practicing physicians.”
K.S.A. § 17-6510(c): 3 cases
Arctic Fin. Corp. v. OTR Express, Inc., 38 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2002). “In this stockholder’s action under K.S.A. 17-6510, for inspection of corporate books and records, the district court dismissed Arctic’s case following OTR’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Arctic failed to prove a proper purpose for inspection.”
Murray v. Miracorp, Inc., 545 P.3d 1009 (Kan. 2024). “But here, we know the Murrays could have prevailed on a shareholder inspection lawsuit under K.S.A. 17-6510 at any relevant time, given their demonstrated success in maintaining such an action in 2016.”
Ihrig v. Frontier Equity Exch. Ass'n, 128 P.3d 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “In June 2002, the Ihrigs made written demand pursuant to K.S.A. 17-6510 for access to Frontier s records that disclosed the salaries and benefits of all Frontier employees.”
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.