2-201.
State fair at Hutchinson; unlawful acts.
A state fair shall be held annually in the city of Hutchinson, Kansas, at such time as shall be fixed by the state fair board. It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or association, or for any corporate entity other than the state fair board, to hold or conduct a state fair in Kansas or to hold or conduct any exhibition or display of any livestock or agricultural products under a designation, publicity or advertisement as a state fair.
A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor.
History:
L. 1913, ch. 293, § 1; R.S. 1923, § 2-201; L. 1972, ch. 1, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 5, § 6; April 30.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. County required to contribute by Laws 1915, chapter 177. The State, ex rel., v. Reno County, 98 Kan. 648, 649, 158 P. 861.
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 6דDefendant also argues that the terms of the Dealer Agreement are enforceable under the provisions of UCC § 2-201 since defendant sent the Agreement to plaintiff on June 3, 1991, and plaintiff never objected.”
Decatur Coop. Ass'n v. Urban, 547 P.2d 323 (Kan. 1976). · cites it 4ד” The official UCC comment following this statute states: “Purposes: “To fill the gap left by the Statute of Frauds provisions for goods (Section 2-201), securities (Section 8-319), and security interests (Section 9-203).”
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 4ד1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
Rajala v. Allied Corp., 66 B.R. 582 (D. Kan. 1986). · cites it 7דThe parol evidence rule is codified in § 2-202, and the statute of frauds in § 2-201. Sales of goods valued at $500 or more must comply with § 2-201.”
– State v. Patterson –, 455 P.3d 792 (Kan. 2020). “Law § 2-201 ; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 2 ; Mich.”
Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 92 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 3דHowever, in its Reply to defendant’s Posh-Trial Brief, plaintiff asserts, for the first time, an enforceability argument, namely that the Master Agreement is invalid due to the provisions of § 2-201. This section governs the formal requirements of a contract under the UCC and…”
In Re Grimes, 6 B.R. 943 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1980). · cites it 3ד595, 95th Cong, 1st Sess. 446 (1977), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p.”
Quaney v. Tobyne, 689 P.2d 844 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 2ד1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
In Re Est. of Antonopoulos, 993 P.2d 637 (Kan. 1999). “; Uniform Probate Code § 2-201 et seq., 8 U.L.A. 101 (1998); Minutes of the House Committee on Judiciary, February 7, 1994, Testimony regarding elective share reform, Attachments 1-4.”
In Re the Marriage of Takusagawa, 166 P.3d 440 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Third, additional statutory and caselaw developments over the past few decades support an exception to applicability of the statute of frauds when a judicial admission of the agreement has been made.”
Wieberg v. Resthaven Gardens of Memory, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 687 (D. Kan. 1991). · cites it 4ד1979), where it had refused an estoppel exception to the UCC statute of frauds, § 2-201, governing the sale of goods for $500 or more.”
State v. McClanahan, 510 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1973). “1, § 2-201; Md. Const., Art. XV, § 5; and Ind.”
Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 92 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (D. Kan. 2015). “However, in its Reply to defendant’s Posh-Trial Brief, plaintiff asserts, for the first time, an enforceability argument, namely that the Master Agreement is invalid due to the provisions of § 2-201. This section governs the formal requirements of a contract under the UCC and…”
— K.S.A. § 2-201(2) — 1 case
M.K.C. Equip. Co. v. M.A.I.L. Code, Inc., 843 F. Supp. 679 (D. Kan. 1994). “Defendant also argues that the terms of the Dealer Agreement are enforceable under the provisions of UCC § 2-201 since defendant sent the Agreement to plaintiff on June 3, 1991, and plaintiff never objected.”
— K.S.A. § 2-201(3) — 2 cases
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996). “1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
Quaney v. Tobyne, 689 P.2d 844 (Kan. 1984). “1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
— K.S.A. § 2-201(3)(b) — 2 cases
Wayman v. Amoco Oil Co., 923 F. Supp. 1322 (D. Kan. 1996). “1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
Quaney v. Tobyne, 689 P.2d 844 (Kan. 1984). “1982), where the author states: “There is an admission for the purpose of UCC § 2-201(3) when there is a manifestation that fairly communicates the concept that the party has admitted the existence of the contract.”
— K.S.A. § 2-201(a) — 1 case
In Re Grimes, 6 B.R. 943 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1980). “595, 95th Cong, 1st Sess. 446 (1977), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, p.”
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.