K.S.A. » Chapter 19
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 19-2912 (2026)

Repealed

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

19-2912.

History: L. 1939, ch. 165, § 12; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Court must determine in a de novo hearing whether a non-conforming use has been abandoned. Union Quarries, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 206 Kan. 268, 274, 275, 478 P.2d 181.

2. Error to impose fines for continuing violations not yet committed nor convicted of; sentencing must include consideration of K.S.A. 21-4607(3) and Kansas Constitution, Bill of Rights, § 9. State v. Scherer, 11 Kan. App. 2d 362, 369, 370, 721 P.2d 743 (1986).

3. Noted in holding that imposition of fine beyond minimum mandatory amount stated in K.S.A. 8-1567 requires compliance with K.S.A. 21-4607. State v. Shuster, 17 Kan. App. 2d 8, 9, 829 P.2d 925 (1992).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1986–1992 · leading case: State v. Scherer, 721 P.2d 743 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Scherer, 721 P.2d 743 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “This penalty is authorized by K.S.A. 19-2912, which states in part: “That any violation of any provision of this act shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not to exceed two hundred dollars for each offense and that each day’s violation shall constitute…”
State v. Shuster, 829 P.2d 925 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “We hold the trial court abused its discretion when it fined defendant more than the minimum fine of $500 because it failed to consider the factors of K.”
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.