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

K.S.A. § 17-7301 (2026)

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

17-7301.

History: L. 1972, ch. 52, § 141; L. 1973, ch. 100, § 18; L. 1975, ch. 144, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 89, § 2; L. 1999, ch. 41, § 4; L. 1999, ch. 149, § 2; L. 2000, ch. 39, § 44; L. 2004, ch. 143, § 78; L. 2009, ch. 64, § 2; Repealed, L. 2014, ch. 121, § 46; January 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 28× “Based upon plaintiff s allegations, it appears that several, but not all, of the defendants are authorized to do business in Kansas pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 17-7301 or have designated registered agents for service pursuant to K.”
Panhandle Agri-Serv., Inc. v. Becker, 644 P.2d 413 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 3× “17-7307(o) provides: “A foreign corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-7301 and 17-7302 and which has done business in this state without authority shall not maintain any action or special proceeding in this state, unless and until such…”
Slawson v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 561 F. Supp. 67 (D. Kan. 1983). · cites it 18× “Motion to Dismiss Moran urges that dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is required by presenting a sequential argument that attempts to show the inapplicability of every Kansas statute under which Moran might have been served.”
Black & Veatch Constr., Inc. v. ABB Power Generation, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 569 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “ABB is registered with the Kansas Secretary of State as a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Kansas pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-7301 . No employees, officers or directors of ABB are located in Kansas, and ABB does not own any property or bank accounts in…”
Heartland Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 161 F.R.D. 111 (D. Kan. 1995). “Sprint also argues that the plaintiffs may not properly pursue litigation in the State of Kansas pursuant to the gate closing statutes of K.S.A. 17-7301 and 17-7302 due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain authority to do business in Kansas.”
Corco, Inc. v. Ledar Transp., Inc., 946 P.2d 1009 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “The trial court dismissed Ledax’s counterclaim with prejudice based on Ledar’s failure to register as a foreign corporation under K.S.A. 17-7301 and K.S.A. 17-7307(a). If a foreign corporation has done business in Kansas without authority and has failed to comply with the…”
Woodmont Corp. v. Rockwood Ctr. P'ship, 852 F. Supp. 948 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “First, they contend Woodmont was not registered to do business in Kansas as required by K.S.A. 17-7301. (Doc. 88, pp. 47-51). Second, they contend Woodmont engaged in loan brokering activities as defined in K.”
AHL Inc. of Delaware v. Star Ins. Co., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 9× “This statute states in pertinent part: A foreign corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-7301 and 17-7302 and which has done business in this state without authority shall not maintain any.”
Trestle & Tower Eng'g, Inc. v. Star Ins., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “This statute states in pertinent part: A foreign corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-7301 and 17-7302 and which has done business in this state without authority shall not maintain any action or special proceeding in this state, unless and…”
Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp. v. Foulston, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Kan. 2003). · cites it 2× “” The defendant argues that this language limits this definition of ‘doing business’ to the Foreign Corporations provisions found in K.S.A. §§ 17-7301 through 17-7308, which address when a foreign corporation must file an application to engage in business with the Kansas…”
Associated Commc'ns & Rsch. Servs., Inc. v. Kansas Pers. Commc'ns Servs., Ltd., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Kan. 1998). “17-7307 provides: A foreign corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-7301 and 17-7302 and which has done business in this state without authority shall not maintain any action or special proceeding in this state, unless and until such corporation…”
Bacardi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Premier Beverage, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Kan. 2005). · cites it 2× “1 Premier argues that Bacardi does business within the state but has failed to register and obtain approval for doing so as required by the Kansas Corporation Code, K.S.A. § 17-7301. It thus contends Bacardi is prohibited from bringing this action by Kansas’ “closed-door”…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 17-7301(a) — 1 case
Slawson v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 561 F. Supp. 67 (D. Kan. 1983). “Motion to Dismiss Moran urges that dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is required by presenting a sequential argument that attempts to show the inapplicability of every Kansas statute under which Moran might have been served.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7301(b) — 1 case
Slawson v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 561 F. Supp. 67 (D. Kan. 1983). “Motion to Dismiss Moran urges that dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is required by presenting a sequential argument that attempts to show the inapplicability of every Kansas statute under which Moran might have been served.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7301(b)(5) — 1 case
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). “Based upon plaintiff s allegations, it appears that several, but not all, of the defendants are authorized to do business in Kansas pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 17-7301 or have designated registered agents for service pursuant to K.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7301(b)(7) — 2 cases
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006). “Based upon plaintiff s allegations, it appears that several, but not all, of the defendants are authorized to do business in Kansas pursuant to K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 17-7301 or have designated registered agents for service pursuant to K.”
Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flender Corp. (D. Kan. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 17-7301(b)(8) — 1 case
Slawson v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 561 F. Supp. 67 (D. Kan. 1983). “Motion to Dismiss Moran urges that dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is required by presenting a sequential argument that attempts to show the inapplicability of every Kansas statute under which Moran might have been served.”
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.