K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3734 (2026)

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

21-3734.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3734; L. 1987, ch. 109, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 50; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 85; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 33; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 13; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 19; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 38× “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
State v. Jurdan, 908 P.2d 1309 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 11× “: This is an appeal by the State from the dismissal of the charge of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734. The trial court dismissed for lack of venue based upon its conclusion that Bourbon County, Kansas, was not the “county where the crime…”
State v. Jones, 731 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “*614 K.S.A. 21-3734 has a long history in this state, its progeny having been enacted in the early years of this century.”
State v. Matzke, 696 P.2d 396 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “Per Curiam: This is a criminal action in which Alvin Matzke (defendant-appellant) appeals a conviction of one count of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734). The defendant filed and briefed his appeal pro se.”
State v. Adams, 153 P.3d 512 (Kan. 2007). “An appellate court should allow the parties an opportunity to brief the issue before the court decides the case. This may be done by requiring the filing of supplemental briefs or by setting the case for reargument.”
State v. Dexter, 80 P.3d 1125 (Kan. 2003). “In September 1998, Dexter was charged with seven counts of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 21-3734(a)(3) when he sold vehicles in inventory without accounting to the Bank for the proceeds.”
Farmers State Bank v. Cooper, 608 P.2d 929 (Kan. 1980). “Here, the sale of collateral was wrongful, if not criminal (see K.S.A. 21-3734), and the failure of the bank to perfect its security agreement has resulted in a loss of some of the collateral, so far as the defendant is concerned.”
State v. Ferguson, 558 P.2d 1092 (Kan. 1976). · cites it 2× “At defendant’s request the trial was continued until the next day. At the conclusion of defendant’s evidence and prior to jury instruction, the state amended the information to delete the reference to May 21, 1974.”
State v. Rozell, 508 P.3d 358 (Kan. 2022). “at 852 ["K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734 is concerned not only with the fate of the collateral but also the resultant damage to the security interest.”
State v. Rozell, 472 P.3d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.”
State v. Jones, 739 P.2d 933 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 3× “: Defendant appealed his conviction of violating K.S.A. 21-3734(l)(c), (impairing a security interest), claiming the statute is unconstitutionally vague, and also claiming there was improper exclusion of evidence, improper inclusion of evidence, and other trial errors committed…”
State v. Rozell (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
State v. Jones, 731 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “*614 K.S.A. 21-3734 has a long history in this state, its progeny having been enacted in the early years of this century.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
State v. Jones, 731 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “*614 K.S.A. 21-3734 has a long history in this state, its progeny having been enacted in the early years of this century.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(a)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Jurdan, 908 P.2d 1309 (Kan. 1995). “: This is an appeal by the State from the dismissal of the charge of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734. The trial court dismissed for lack of venue based upon its conclusion that Bourbon County, Kansas, was not the “county where the crime…”
State v. Rozell, 472 P.3d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.”
State v. Rozell (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2) (now K.S.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(a)(3) — 1 case
State v. Dexter, 80 P.3d 1125 (Kan. 2003). “In September 1998, Dexter was charged with seven counts of impairing a security interest in violation of K.S.A. 21-3734(a)(3) when he sold vehicles in inventory without accounting to the Bank for the proceeds.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3734(l)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Jones, 748 P.2d 839 (Kan. 1988). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of impairing a security interest (K.S.A. 21-3734[1][c]), claiming that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, that the complaint was constitutionally insufficient, that evidence was improperly excluded, that evidence was improperly admitted,…”
State v. Jones, 731 P.2d 881 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “*614 K.S.A. 21-3734 has a long history in this state, its progeny having been enacted in the early years of this century.”
State v. Jones, 739 P.2d 933 (Kan. 1987). “: Defendant appealed his conviction of violating K.S.A. 21-3734(l)(c), (impairing a security interest), claiming the statute is unconstitutionally vague, and also claiming there was improper exclusion of evidence, improper inclusion of evidence, and other trial errors committed…”
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.