Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 8-2003 (2026)
Secretary of transportation to adopt sign manual
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
8-2003. Secretary of transportation to adopt sign manual. The secretary of transportation shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this act for use upon highways within this state. Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the manual on uniform traffic-control devices for streets and highways and other standards issued or endorsed by the federal highway administrator.
History: L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-2003; L. 1975, ch. 427, § 53; August 15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Patterson v. Cowley Cnty., Kansas, 413 P.3d 432 (Kan. 2018).
Patterson v. Cowley Cnty., Kansas, 413 P.3d 432 (Kan. 2018). “See K.S.A. 8-2003 (mandating the transportation secretary adopt a manual).”
Carpenter v. Johnson, 649 P.2d 400 (Kan. 1982). ““The secretary of transportation shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this act for use upon highways within this state.”
Patterson v. Cowley Cnty., Kansas, 388 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). ““The secretaiy of transportation shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic-control devices consistent with the provisions of this act for use upon highways within this state.”
Schaeffer v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 608 P.2d 1309 (Kan. 1980). “K.S.A. 8-2003 mandates that the Secretary of Transportation shall adopt a manual and specifications for a uniform system of traffic control devices and that such system: *513 “shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition…”
Lay v. State, Dep't of Transp., 928 P.2d 920 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “All parties agree that the 1988 edition was legally applicable on September 30, 1992.”
Collins v. Bd. of Douglas Cnty. Comm'rs, 822 P.2d 1042 (Kan. 1991). “Collins reasons that (1) the act of placing signs at the bridge was not discretionary; consequently, there is no immunity under the KTCA; (2) K.S.A. 8-2003 adopts the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), thus establishing a statutory duty and written guidelines for…”
Toumberlin v. Haas, 689 P.2d 808 (Kan. 1984). “*140 Plaintiffs presented no evidence that signs of any type were legally required under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2003. The Franklin County engineer testified, on behalf of the county, that both of the roads in question were…”
Finkbiner v. Clay Cnty. Kansas, 714 P.2d 1380 (Kan. 1986). “K.S.A. 8-2003. To carry out the policy declared by the legislature, the secretary adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways *860 (MUTCD) published by the United States Department of Transportation.”
Waits v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 531 P.2d 22 (Kan. 1975). “33, § 8-2003, which replaces K.S.A. 8-510, the legislature expressly provides: "Sec.”
Force Ex Rel. Force v. City of Lawrence, 838 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). “Additionally, KDOT claims that Force cannot prove the essential element of duty where the MUTCD, which the Secretary of Transportation adopted pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2003, does not establish any standards for the placement of protected left-turn signals.”
Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R., 757 F. Supp. 1198 (D. Kan. 1991). “K.S.A. §§ 8-2003, 66-231a, and Kan.Admin.”
Kastendieck v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 934 F. Supp. 387 (D. Kan. 1996). “With regard to a governmental entity’s duty to place and maintain traffic control devices, the Kansas Secretary of Transportation adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) pursuant to K.S.A. § 8-2003. Carpenter, 231 Kan. at 787 , 649 P.”
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.