K.S.A. » Chapter 44
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-506 (2026)

Application of act to certain businesses or employments, lands and premises

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

44-506. Application of act to certain businesses or employments, lands and premises. The workmen's compensation act shall not be construed to apply to business or employment which, according to law, is so engaged in interstate commerce as to be not subject to the legislative power of the state, nor to persons injured while they are so engaged: Provided, That the workmen's compensation act shall apply also to injuries sustained outside the state where: (1) The principal place of employment is within the state; or (2) the contract of employment was made within the state, unless such contract otherwise specifically provides: Provided, however, That the workmen's compensation act shall apply to all lands and premises owned or held by the United States of America by deed or act of cession, by purchase or otherwise, which is within the exterior boundaries of the state of Kansas and to all projects, buildings, constructions, improvements and property belonging to the United States of America within said exterior boundaries as authorized by 40 U.S.C. 290, enacted June 25, 1936.

History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 6; L. 1970, ch. 190, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Speer v. Sammons Trucking & Fireman's Fund Ins., 128 P.3d 984 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Speer v. Sammons Trucking & Fireman's Fund Ins., 128 P.3d 984 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “: Bradley Speer appeals from the decision of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) where the Board found that it lacked jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-506 to consider Speer s claim because Speer failed to show (1) that his principal place of employment was within Kansas or (2)…”
Coble v. Williams, 282 P.2d 425 (Kan. 1955). · cites it 6× “Section 44-506 contains the only exception as to the applicability of the act and that is, it shall not be construed to apply to business or employment which, according to law, are so engaged in interstate commerce as to be not subject to the legislative power of the state, nor…”
Graff v. Trans World Airlines, 983 P.2d 258 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 5× “44-505 and K.S.A. 44-506. “4. K.S.A. 44-506 excludes activities so involved in interstate commerce as not to be subject to the legislative power of this state.”
Abbey v. Cleveland Inspection Servs., Inc., 41 P.3d 297 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Cleveland Inspection filed a timely application for Board review on whether the parties are covered by the Kansas Workers Compensation Act (Act) and whether K.S.A. 44-506 requires the employment contract to be litigated in Oklahoma.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2003). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-506 (1999). Caselman was dispatched out of Kansas but worked in several states, made his employment contract in Iowa, and was injured in Iowa.”
Fernandez v. McDonald's, 292 P.3d 311 (Kan. 2013). “44-505 and K.S.A. 44-506 enumerate specific types of employment relationships that are excluded under the Act.”
Shehane v. Station Casino & CNA Ins., 3 P.3d 551 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 44-506 provides that “the workmen’s compensation act shall apply also to injuries sustained outside the state where: (1) The principal place of employment is within the state; or (2) the contract of employment was made within the state, unless such contract otherwise…”
Olds-Carter v. Lakeshore Farms, Inc., 250 P.3d 825 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “44-505 provides, in relevant part: “(a) Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 44-506 and amendments thereto, the workers compensation act shall apply to all employments wherein employers employ employees within this state except that such act shall not apply to: (1) Agricultural…”
Clements v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Kan. 1999). · cites it 2× “However, the choice of laws provision relied upon in both of these cases mirrors the general choice of laws rule for Kansas — -Kansas law applies to cases where the contract for employment took place in Kansas.”
Rivera v. Cimarron Dairy, 988 P.2d 235 (Kan. 1999). “44-505, which provides, in part: “(a) Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 44-506 and amendments thereto, the workers compensation act shall apply to all employments wherein employers employ employees within this state except that such act shall not apply to: (1) Agricultural…”
Lumry v. State, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, 307 P.3d 232 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “at 556 ; see K.S.A. 44-506. The Supreme Court rejected this argument as “unconvincing.”
Knelson v. Meadowlanders, Inc., 732 P.2d 808 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Respondents claim that the trial court erred in finding that (1) Kansas had jurisdiction to resolve this workers’ compensation dispute (K.S.A. 44-506); (2) claimant had sustained a 100 percent permanent partial disability; and (3) respondents were not entitled to credit against…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 44-506(1) — 2 cases
Speer v. Sammons Trucking & Fireman's Fund Ins., 128 P.3d 984 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “: Bradley Speer appeals from the decision of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) where the Board found that it lacked jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-506 to consider Speer s claim because Speer failed to show (1) that his principal place of employment was within Kansas or (2)…”
Knelson v. Meadowlanders, Inc., 732 P.2d 808 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “Respondents claim that the trial court erred in finding that (1) Kansas had jurisdiction to resolve this workers’ compensation dispute (K.S.A. 44-506); (2) claimant had sustained a 100 percent permanent partial disability; and (3) respondents were not entitled to credit against…”
— K.S.A. § 44-506(2) — 2 cases
Speer v. Sammons Trucking & Fireman's Fund Ins., 128 P.3d 984 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “: Bradley Speer appeals from the decision of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) where the Board found that it lacked jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-506 to consider Speer s claim because Speer failed to show (1) that his principal place of employment was within Kansas or (2)…”
Shields v. K.A.T. Transp., 53 P.3d 1242 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
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.