5 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1928–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Mattinglygreen1 sentence2005See generally Commonwealth v. Mattingly, 98 S.W.3d 865 (Ky.App.2002) (construing the pre-2000 version of the statute), for an accurate analysis of this issue. 2 .We are not asked here to determine the constitutionality of KRS 189A.010(2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Manns v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005But see Manns v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 439, 445-46 (Ky.2002) (holding unconstitutional statute that purported to unilaterally amend the Kentucky Rules of Evidence). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Slate v. Witt
neutral
2 sentences1928Slate v. Witt, 188 Ky. 133 , 221 S.W. 217 . 1928Slate v. Witt, 188 Ky. 133 , 221 S.W. 217 . | 2 | 1928–1928 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
1 sentence2020In Birchfield, the United States Supreme Court examined whether “laws that . . . make it a crime for a motorist to refuse to be tested after being lawfully arrested for driving while impaired . . . violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches.” Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2166-67 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
WDKY-TV, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet
green
2 sentences2000WDKY-TV, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 838 S.W.2d 431 (1992), sets out the accurate principle that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of an Administrative Board as a finder of fact. 2000WDKY-TV, Inc. v. Revenue Cabinet, Ky.App., 838 S.W.2d 431 (1992), sets out the accurate principle that a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of an Administrative Board as a finder of fact. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.