K.S.A. » Chapter 65
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 65-2857 (2026)

Injunction and quo warranto for unlawful practice of the healing arts

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

65-2857. Injunction and quo warranto for unlawful practice of the healing arts. An action in injunction or quo warranto may be brought and maintained in the name of the state of Kansas to enjoin or oust from the unlawful practice of any profession regulated by the board or any profession defined by the practice acts administered by the board a person practicing such profession without being duly licensed therefor.

History: L. 1957, ch. 343, § 57; L. 1976, ch. 273, § 24; L. 2014, ch. 131, § 22; L. 2015, ch. 46, § 12; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2022 · leading case: State ex rel. State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Thomas, 97 P.3d 513 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Thomas, 97 P.3d 513 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “65-2828 and K.S.A. 65-2840a. In addition, the Legislature authorized the Board to seek injunctions against any person who has engaged or who is about to engage in conduct or practices which violate the Act.”
State Ex Rel. State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Beyrle, 7 P.3d 1194 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 3× “The petition sought declaratory, injunctive, and quo warranto relief as allowed under K.S.A. 65-2857. A consent judgment was entered against Royston upon her stipulation that she had violated the Act and would permanently cease any activities which violated the Act.”
State ex rel. State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Beyrle, 7 P.3d 1194 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 3× “The petition sought declaratory, injunctive, and quo warranto relief as allowed under K.S.A. 65-2857. A consent judgment was entered against Royston upon her stipulation that she had violated the Act and would permanently cease any activities which violated the Act.”
Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Parcells (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “65-2803 and K.S.A. 65-2857. Specifically, the petition alleged that Parcells was guilty of independently performing autopsies, rendering medical diagnoses in the context of autopsies, attaching words or abbreviations to his name which identify him as a practitioner of medicine…”
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.