K.S.A. » Chapter 75
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 75-4302 (2026)

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

75-4302.

History: L. 1970, ch. 366, § 2; L. 1980, ch. 282, § 1; Repealed, L. 1990, ch. 306, § 24; May 31.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1978–2003 · leading case: State v. Edgington, 573 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Edgington, 573 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “21-3805 is barred for the reason that the defendant was previously prosecuted for the offense of failing to file a disclosure of substantial interest as defined by K.S.A. 75-4302, et seq., which prosecution resulted in an acquittal, and in which evidence was introduced which was…”
In Re Berkowitz, 602 P.2d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “On appeal from the perjury conviction, he argued that the compulsory joinder portion of 21-3108(2)(a) barred the perjury prosecution because certain physical evidence (checks representing income) which had been used in the first trial was also used in the second.”
Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Wagnon, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 2003). “15 Pursuant to Kansas Statutes Annotated § 75-4302 the Director of Vehicles, defendant Walker, is empowered to enter into reciprocity agreements with other “states” regulating the use of vehicles owned by citizens of other states on the highways of Kansas.”
— K.S.A. § 75-4302(d) — 2 cases
In Re Berkowitz, 602 P.2d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “On appeal from the perjury conviction, he argued that the compulsory joinder portion of 21-3108(2)(a) barred the perjury prosecution because certain physical evidence (checks representing income) which had been used in the first trial was also used in the second.”
State v. Edgington, 573 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1978). “21-3805 is barred for the reason that the defendant was previously prosecuted for the offense of failing to file a disclosure of substantial interest as defined by K.S.A. 75-4302, et seq., which prosecution resulted in an acquittal, and in which evidence was introduced which was…”
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.