Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 27-102 (2026)

Exclusive jurisdiction ceded to the United States; concurrent jurisdiction with Kansas for military purposes, procedure

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

27-102. Exclusive jurisdiction ceded to the United States; concurrent jurisdiction with Kansas for military purposes, procedure. (a) That exclusive jurisdiction over and within any lands so acquired by the United States shall be, and the same is hereby, ceded to the United States, for all purposes; saving, however, to the state of Kansas the right to serve therein any civil or criminal process issued under the authority of the state, in any action on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred or crimes committed in said state, but outside the boundaries of such land; and saving further to said state the right to tax the property and franchises of any railroad, bridge or other corporations within the boundaries of such lands; but the jurisdiction hereby ceded shall not continue after the United States shall cease to own said lands.

(b) (1) The state of Kansas authorizes the governor to grant requests from the United States to establish concurrent jurisdiction over land owned by the United States for military purposes within the boundaries of Kansas. Concurrent jurisdiction shall be effective upon completion of:

(A) A written offer for concurrent jurisdiction being sent to the governor by the principal officer of the military installation or other authorized representative of the United States having supervision and control over the land that:

(i) Clearly states the subject matter for the concurrent jurisdiction request;

(ii) provides the metes and bounds description of the boundary of the concurrent jurisdiction offer; and

(iii) indicates whether the request includes future contiguous expansion of land acquired for military purposes; and

(B) the governor accepting the offer in writing that clearly confirms each of the elements of the offer that are accepted; and

(C) the governor recording and indexing the offer, acceptance and metes and bounds description of the boundary of concurrent jurisdiction with the secretary of state who shall publish such information in the Kansas register.

(2) After concurrent jurisdiction is effective:

(A) The governor shall send a copy of the information provided to the secretary of state to the official who made the initial written offer; and

(B) any state or local agency may enter into a reciprocal agreement or memorandum of understanding with any agency of the United States for the coordination and designation of responsibilities related to the concurrent jurisdiction.

History: L. 1927, ch. 206, § 2; L. 2025, ch. 59, § 1; April 24.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: City of Junction City v. Riley, 731 P.2d 310 (Kan. 1987).
City of Junction City v. Riley, 731 P.2d 310 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 3× “27-102, which provides: “That exclusive jurisdiction over and within any lands so acquired by the United States shall be, and the same is hereby, ceded to the United States, for all purposes; saving, however, to the state of Kansas the right to serve therein any civil or…”
In Re the Appeal of Armed Forces Coop. Insuring Ass'n, 625 P.2d 11 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “On February 25, 1875, upon passage by the state legislature of “An Act to Cede Jurisdiction to the United States over the territory of the Fort Leavenworth Military Reservation,” L. 1875, ch. 66, § 1, Kansas ceded to the United States exclusive jurisdiction over and within the…”
Dun-Par Engineered Form Co. v. Vanum Constr. Co., 310 P.3d 1072 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “Under K.S.A. 27-102 and K.S.A. 27-105, the State of Kansas gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the Fort Riley Military Reservation, only reserving for itself the right to serve process within the Fort’s boundaries.”
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.