17-7307.
Actions by and against unqualified foreign corporations.
(a) A foreign corporation which is required to comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-7302 and K.S.A. 17-7930 through 17-7934, and amendments thereto, 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 has been authorized to do business in this state and has paid to the state all taxes, fees and penalties which would have been due for the years or parts thereof during which it did business in this state without authority. This prohibition shall not apply to any successor in interest of any such foreign corporation.
(b) The failure of a foreign corporation to obtain authority to do business in this state shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of the foreign corporation or the right of any other party to the contract to maintain any action or special proceeding thereon, and shall not prevent the foreign corporation from defending any action or special proceeding in this state.
(c) Any person having a cause of action against any foreign corporation, whether or not such corporation is qualified to do business in this state, which cause of action arose in Kansas out of such corporation doing business in Kansas, or arose while such corporation was doing business in Kansas, may file suit against the corporation in the proper court of a county in which there is proper venue. Service of process in any action shall be made in the manner prescribed by K.S.A. 60-304, and amendments thereto.
History:
L. 1972, ch. 52, § 147; L. 1973, ch. 100, § 21; L. 2016, ch. 110, § 120; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 22× “2003) (“doing busi *457 ness” under K.S.A. 17-7307[c] “requires ongoing, systematic activity” and “even if the statute purports to authorize jurisdiction, the constitutional due process requirements for general jurisdiction must be satisfied.”
Classic Commc'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 956 F. Supp. 896 (D. Kan. 1996).
· cites it 10× “The Cable Cities also contend that Classic Communications is statutorily barred *903 by Kan.Stat.Ann. § 17-7307 from pursuing claims against the cities.”
Slawson v. Dome Petroleum Corp., 561 F. Supp. 67 (D. Kan. 1983).
· cites it 31× “K.S.A. § 17-7307 is titled “Actions by and against unqualified foreign corporations.”
Corco, Inc. v. Ledar Transp., Inc., 946 P.2d 1009 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 17-7307 is substantially the same as § 383 of the Delaware Corporation Code.”
Grimandi v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 512 F. Supp. 764 (D. Kan. 1981).
· cites it 2× “*768 Plaintiffs have argued that service of process is authorized by K.S.A. § 17-7307, which authorizes service upon a foreign corporation for causes of action arising while the corporation was “doing business” in Kansas, without the requirement that the cause of action arise…”
All. Steel, Inc. v. Piland, 134 P.3d 669 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “” On September 8, 2004, the Pilands filed a motion to dismiss Alliance’s foreclosure petition based on K.S.A. 17-7307, arguing that Alliance was an Oklahoma corporation doing business in Kansas that was not authorized to do business in Kansas and did not, therefore, have access…”
Woodmont Corp. v. Rockwood Ctr. P'ship, 858 F. Supp. 158 (D. Kan. 1994).
· cites it 2× “First, they contend Woodmont was “doing business in this state” within the meaning of K.S.A. 17-7307(a). Second, they contend the court failed to address their argument that Woodmont’s tortious breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7307(a) — 10 cases
All. Steel, Inc. v. Piland, 134 P.3d 669 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
“” On September 8, 2004, the Pilands filed a motion to dismiss Alliance’s foreclosure petition based on K.S.A. 17-7307, arguing that Alliance was an Oklahoma corporation doing business in Kansas that was not authorized to do business in Kansas and did not, therefore, have access…”
Woodmont Corp. v. Rockwood Ctr. P'ship, 858 F. Supp. 158 (D. Kan. 1994).
“First, they contend Woodmont was “doing business in this state” within the meaning of K.S.A. 17-7307(a). Second, they contend the court failed to address their argument that Woodmont’s tortious breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7307(c) — 3 cases
Merriman v. Crompton Corp., 146 P.3d 162 (Kan. 2006).
“2003) (“doing busi *457 ness” under K.S.A. 17-7307[c] “requires ongoing, systematic activity” and “even if the statute purports to authorize jurisdiction, the constitutional due process requirements for general jurisdiction must be satisfied.”
— K.S.A. § 17-7307(e) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 17-7307(o) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 17-7307(á) — 1 case
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.