Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 50-115 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
50-115.
History: L. 1889, ch. 257, § 4; R.S. 1923, 50-115; L. 1985, ch. 181, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 136, § 12; Repealed, L. 2013, ch. 102, § 7; April 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012).
O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., 277 P.3d 1062 (Kan. 2012). “50-108, K.S.A. 50-115, K.S.A. 50-147, and K.S.A. 50-161.”
Four B Corp. v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2003). “Interpreting the Kansas Act, the Smith court found that the Kansas legislature “recognized its statute of K.S.A. 50-115 as being fully sufficient for an indirect purchaser to sue for the full consideration of the product.”
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 223 F.R.D. 335 (E.D. Pa. 2004). “See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-115 . Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Supreme Court of Kansas would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling for antitrust class actions filed in the federal courts.”
Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 335 P.3d 644 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “50-115, which allowed a successful plaintiff to recover the full consideration paid for goods “controlled in price by such combination” and which are claimed by Plaintiffs in our present case; (2) a declaration that provisions of the KRTA shall be “construed in harmony” with the…”
In Re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-115 . 34 . Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claim for damages under Mississippi law is based on the following statutory provision: "Any person, natural or artificial, injured or damaged by a trust and combine as herein defined, or by its effects direct or…”
Winters v. Kansas Hosp. Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 562 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977). “Winters, on behalf of himself and his purported class which allegedly consists of approximately one million persons, seeks recovery under K.S.A. 50-115 of the $500,000,000 or such amount as would be shown by an accounting to have been paid by him and all other non-Blue Cross…”
Reorganized FLI v. Williams Companies, 1 F.4th 1214 (10th Cir. 2021). “Farmland sought, inter alia, full consideration damages pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-115 . In 2019, Appellants moved for summary judgment on Farmland’s claims, arguing the repeal of § 50-115 operated retroactively to preclude Farmland from obtaining any relief.”
In Re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Nev. 2007). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-115 . Under this statute, Plaintiffs' damage calculation will not require the Court to determine what a just and reasonable rate would have been in the natural gas market absent Defendants' alleged misconduct.”
In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 836 F. Supp. 2d 290 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “50-101 and 50-112” and seeking relief pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-115 , 50-108, and 50-161).”
Reorganized FLI, Inc. v. The Williams Companies, Inc. (D. Kan. 2019). “Defendants sought summary judgment arguing that the repeal of § 50-115 operated retroactively and Plaintiff could no longer obtain full consideration damages, thus foreclosing Plaintiff’s claim.”
Reorganized FLI, Inc. v. The Williams Companies, Inc. (D. Kan. 2019). “Plaintiff sought full consideration damages, or a full refund of its gas purchases, under K.S.A. § 50-115. That statute was repealed in 2013.”
Cease v. Safelite Glass Corp., 927 F. Supp. 1452 (D. Kan. 1996). “50-102) and K.S.A. 50-115 5 (creating civil cause of action for violation of K.”
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.