K.S.A. » Chapter 02
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 2-714 (2026)

Same; destruction and control of certain plants; barberry eradication fund

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

2-714. Same; destruction and control of certain plants; barberry eradication fund. The secretary of agriculture is hereby authorized to destroy or cause to be destroyed all such plants, or parts thereof capable of propagation, wherever and whenever found, and may cooperate with other agencies and individuals within the state and with the United States department of agriculture in the removal of these plants and in the control of the black stem rust disease in agricultural crops and wild grasses. The secretary of agriculture is hereby authorized to enter into agreements with any agency of the federal government for the purpose of carrying out the common barberry eradication program. Such agreement may provide for proportionate contributions of funds for such a program and when such is the case, the agreement shall clearly state the amounts to be contributed by the federal agency and the amounts to be contributed by the Kansas department of agriculture. All funds contributed by any federal agency and the funds contributed by the Kansas department of agriculture shall be deposited in the state treasury in a fund to be known as the "barberry eradication fund," which fund is hereby created and the secretary of agriculture is hereby authorized to expend said funds in carrying out its common barberry eradication program.

History: L. 1951, ch. 10, § 3; L. 1955, ch. 5, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 101, § 12; July 1.


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1975–1998 · leading case: Koss Constr. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 960 P.2d 255 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Koss Constr. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 960 P.2d 255 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Since Section 2-714 directly covers primary economic loss to the defective goods, the cotuts should not effectively repeal that Section by stretching Section 402A beyond its intended limits.”
Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc., 657 P.2d 517 (Kan. 1983). “§ 2-714, comment 2. The test for substantial impairment is, after all, a common sense perception.”
Fordyce Concrete, Inc. v. MacK Trucks, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 118 (D. Kan. 1982). “In Kansas these damages would have been recoverable under the Uniform Commercial Code pursuant to § 2-714, K.S.A. 84-2-714, but probably not under § 402A.”
Ricklefs v. Clemens, 531 P.2d 94 (Kan. 1975). “, Book 62K Uniform Commercial Code, §2-714), ‘Subsection (2) describes the usual, standard and reasonable method of ascertaining damages in the case of breach of warranty, but it is not intended as an exclusive measure.”
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.