Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 25-4129 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

25-4129.

History: L. 1974, ch. 166, § 29; Repealed, L. 1981, ch. 171, § 51; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Campaign finance act construed; intentional failure of candidate to remit contributions to treasurer did not constitute fraudulent campaign finance reporting. State v. Doyen, 224 Kan. 482, 580 P.2d 1351.

2. Dismissal of charges brought hereunder upheld; campaign finance act (K.S.A. 25-4101 et seq.) unconstitutional; enacting clause defective. State v. Kearns, 229 Kan. 207, 623 P.2d 507.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: State v. Doyen, 580 P.2d 1351 (Kan. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Doyen, 580 P.2d 1351 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 5× “: This is an appeal by the state from the dismissal of a criminal complaint charging three counts of fraudulent campaign finance reporting in violation of K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 25-4129. The sole issue presented by the state on the appeal is whether the complaint, together with the…”
State v. Carr, 331 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2014). “The State charged Doyen with “causing false campaign finance reports to be filed” in violation of K.S.A. 25-4129, which prohibited intentionally making any false material statement in a campaign finance report.”
State v. Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “The State charged the candidate with three counts of fraudulent campaign finance reporting in violation of K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 25-4129, now 25-4168. The district court found that the complaint and supporting affidavit were insufficient and dismissed the complaint.”
State v. Kearns, 623 P.2d 507 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “, defendant-appellee, was charged with three counts of fraudulent reporting of election campaign financing in violation of K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 25-4129. Kearns filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the statute is unconstitutional.”
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.