2-608.
Compensation of extension agents; contribution from federal and state funds.
If a county extension council has been organized as specified in K.S.A. 2-611, and amendments thereto, or an extension district has been established under K.S.A. 2-623, and amendments thereto, for the purpose of giving instruction in agriculture, marketing, home economics, 4-H club and youth work, community and resource development, and economic development initiatives to the people of the county or extension district, as the case may be, through practical demonstrations, meetings, publications, and otherwise, and the employment of an extension agent or agents to prosecute such instructions, the Kansas state university of agriculture and applied science shall contribute from federal and state funds granted for cooperative extension work an amount of not less than $1,500, as far as such funds are available, towards the salary of each extension agent employed.
History:
L. 1951, ch. 8, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 3, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 2, § 7; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 657 P.2d 517 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Numerous cases from other jurisdictions have discussed the substantial impairment requirement for revocation of goods under § 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code. See, e.”
Hemmert Agric. Aviation, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Aircraft Corp., 663 F. Supp. 1546 (D. Kan. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The language of cases like Jorgensen , coupled with the subjective phrase “to him” in Section 2-608 and official Comment 2 to that section, gives an aggrieved buyer a strong argument that he has the right to revoke acceptance because of his special sensitivity to the breach of…”
McGilbray v. Scholfield Winnebago, Inc., 561 P.2d 832 (Kan. 1977).
“84-2-608, is a verbatim enactment of § 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Numerous defects in the home were claimed, and both the seller and the manufacturer attempted repairs but water leakage and other serious problems remained.”
Est. of Graham v. Home State Bank, 533 P.2d 1318 (Kan. 1975).
· cites it 2× “) The intention theory is adopted in the Uniform Probate Code, Section 2-608. It should be emphasized that where the property is conveyed by the guardian of an incompetent testator, an ademption does result to the extent of the proceeds of the sale which have already been *776…”
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006).
“2d 517 (1983) (citing § 2-608(2)). And it is largely disputed whether Miller and Sons revoked its acceptance before a substantial change in the flake occurred.”
— K.S.A. § 2-608(1) — 1 case
Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 657 P.2d 517 (Kan. 1983).
“Numerous cases from other jurisdictions have discussed the substantial impairment requirement for revocation of goods under § 2-608 of the Uniform Commercial Code. See, e.”
— K.S.A. § 2-608(2) — 1 case
Scotwood Indus., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Kan. 2006).
“2d 517 (1983) (citing § 2-608(2)). And it is largely disputed whether Miller and Sons revoked its acceptance before a substantial change in the flake occurred.”
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.