How cited: Commonwealth v. Neal · Go Syfert

Commonwealth v. Neal (2002)

green · 89 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 50
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green Payton v. Commonwealth (2010)
Rule Authority · Ky. · 2 citations in this opinion
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (footnotes omitted). .
green Commonwealth v. Murray (2004)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Our standard of review is set forth in Commonwealth v. Neal, Ky.App., 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (2002), which requires that “we first determine whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Here, the findings of fact are undisputed and supported by substantial evidence. 4 Therefore, we must “conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Id.
green Randall Bays v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2025)
Rule Authority · Ky.
“First, we must ‘determine whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Bobby Ray Osborne v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2025)
Rule Authority · Ky.
“Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 3-4 (citing Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Lance Bowman v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2024)
Rule Authority · Ky.
Payton, 327 S.W.3d at 471 . “[W]e must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Id. at 471-72 (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Michael W. Clay v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2024)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
“Based on those findings of fact, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnote citations omitted).
footnote citations omitted
green Ronald Williams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2023)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Ky. App. 2002).
green Jeffrey Allen Kay 323747 v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2023)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted). -5- Analysis Kay and Kost raise two arguments on appeal: (1) that Trooper Dodd did not have probable cause to initiate the traffic stop; and (2) the stop was impermissibly prolonged. i. The traffic stop was supported by probable cause A traffic stop is a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
footnotes omitted
green Alex Ryan Payne v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2023)
Rule Authority · Ky.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002).
green Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Tyrin Christopher Currington (2023)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
We then “conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision [was] correct as a matter of law.” Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Abdul A. Tyree (2022)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Ed. 2d 732 (1984); Kerr v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 250, 265 (Ky. 2013) (citing to King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Ky. 2012)); Commonwealth v. McManus, 107 S.W.3d 175, 177 (Ky. 2003); Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002).
green William Bembury v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Based on those findings of fact, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Holly Combs (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App. 2002) (citations omitted). -9- The Commonwealth argues that Combs voluntarily consented to the blood test and so neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances were necessary to justify the blood draw.
citations omitted
green Billy Vick v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Michael Scott Harney v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
If a “trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence . . . they are conclusive.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App. 2002).
green John David Graves v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
We then “conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010) (quoting -8- Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Jessica Skaggs (2021)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002).
green Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Holly Combs (2020)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Dewayne C. Zachery v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2020)
Rule Authority · Ky.
Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).5 Substantial evidence is “evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Commonwealth v. Jennings, 490 S.W.3d 339, 346 (Ky. 2016) (quoting Owens-Coming Fiberglas v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409, 414 (Ky. 1998)).
green Anthony Ball v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2019)
Rule Authority · Ky.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “we defer to the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence and only review such findings for clear error.” Bond v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Ky. 2015) (citing Rule of Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 9.781; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Amanda Bowen v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2018)
Rule Authority · Ky.
“On appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we apply [a] two-step process ... ”19 “First, we review the trial court’s findings of 19 Smith v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 160, 164 (Ky. 2013). 9 fact under a clearly erroneous standard.”20 “Under this standard, the trial court’s findings of fact will be conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence.”21 “We then ‘conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts…
citing Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010)
green Simms v. Commonwealth (2017)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)(footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Mundy v. Commonwealth (2017)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Commonwealth v. Crosby (2017)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonioealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted).
footnotes omitted
green Lundy v. Commonwealth (2017)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
As explained in Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002) (footnotes omitted): An appellate court’s standard of review of the trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress requires that we first determine whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
footnotes omitted
green Fischer v. Commonwealth (2016)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Based on those findings of fact, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law. 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002).
green Kennedy v. Commonwealth (2016)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (footnotes omitted).
green Michael E. Simpson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2015)
Rule Authority · Ky.
We then "conduct a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law." Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002)).
green Michael E. Simpson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2015)
Rule Authority · Ky.
We then “conduct' a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts to determiné whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (K.y.2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002)).
green Gary Steven Bond v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2015)
Rule Authority · Ky.
RCr 9.78; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002).
green Gary Steven Bond v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2015)
Rule Authority · Ky.
RCr 9.78; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Bessinger v. Commonwealth (2014)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
“Based on those findings of fact, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (citing Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky.1998); Commonwealth v. Opell, 3 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Ky.App.1999)).
green Brown v. Commonwealth (2014)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 751 , 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2098 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); Kerr v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 250, 265 (Ky.2013) (citing to King v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Ky.2012)); Commonwealth v. McManus, 107 S.W.3d 175, 177 (Ky.2003); Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App.2002).
green Smith v. Commonwealth (2013)
Rule Authority · Ky.
We then “conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision [was] correct as a matter of law.” Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468, 471-72 (Ky.2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002)).
green Reynolds v. Commonwealth (2012)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Bagby v. Commonwealth (2012)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (footnotes omitted).
green Artis v. Commonwealth (2012)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Stevens v. Commonwealth (2011)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (footnotes omitted).
green Hadaway v. Commonwealth (2011)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
RCr 9.78 2 ; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Carter v. Commonwealth (2011)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
See RCr 9.78; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002); Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky.1998).
green Hayes v. Commonwealth (2010)
Rule Authority · Ky.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Quist v. Commonwealth (2010)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Our review of the trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress “requires that we first determine whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green King v. Commonwealth (2010)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
RCr 9.78; Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Smith v. Commonwealth (2009)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
If the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, then “[biased on those findings of fact, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (citing Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky.1998); Commonwealth v. Opell, 3 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Ky.App.1999)).
green Lindsey v. Commonwealth (2009)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Benjamin v. Commonwealth (2008)
Rule Authority · Ky.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.Ct.App.2002); RCr 9.78.
green Perkins v. Commonwealth (2007)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Botto v. Commonwealth (2006)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (citations omitted).
green Southers v. Commonwealth (2006)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002).
green Dunn v. Commonwealth (2006)
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
KRS 218A.1415. 2 . 84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky.App.2002) (internal citations omitted). 3 .