Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sawyer v. Whitleygreen2 sentences2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 | 2 | 2 |
Bonar v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 | 2 | 2 |
Robert Wayne Sawyer v. John Whitley, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiarygreen2 sentences2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 2005See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Murraygreen2 sentences2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 2012See also Sawyer v. Whitley, 945 F.2d 812, 823-24 (5th Cir.1991) (claim of incompetency to stand trial partially because of mental retardation procedurally defaulted where not asserted at trial), aff'd, Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 , 112 S.Ct. 2514 , 120 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); cf. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 180 Ky. 338 , 202 S.W. 676, 677 (1918) (waiver may be either by express consent, by failure to assert in time, or by conduct inconsistent with a purpose to insist on it). “[T]he question is ... whether at the time of the default the claim was ‘available’ at all.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 5 | 1 | 2 |
Bye v. Mattinglygreen1 sentence2024See Warnick v. Childers, 282 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Ky. 1955); see also Mattingly, 975 S.W.2d at 456 . | 1 | 1 |
Warnick v. Childersgreen1 sentence2024See Warnick v. Childers, 282 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Ky. 1955); see also Mattingly, 975 S.W.2d at 456 . | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Hartgreen1 sentence2015Thus, it appears, the default rule laid out in the revenue code appears to be one of “administrative convenience to the IRS,” Dodge, 385 P.3d at 513 (quoting Monterey County v. Cornejo, 53 Cal.3d 1271 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d 586, 590 (1991)); see also Hart v. Hart, 774 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Ky.App.1989) (“Congress was attempting to extricate the IRS from the costly and time-consuming business of fact finding necessary under the former version of the statute.”); Blanchard, 401 S.E.2d at 718 (Fletchner, J., dissenting) (“Congress is indifferent to the question of which parent claims the exempt | 1 | 1 |
Monterey County v. Cornejogreen2 sentences2015Thus, it appears, the default rule laid out in the revenue code appears to be one of “administrative convenience to the IRS,” Dodge, 385 P.3d at 513 (quoting Monterey County v. Cornejo, 53 Cal.3d 1271 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d 586, 590 (1991)); see also Hart v. Hart, 774 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Ky.App.1989) (“Congress was attempting to extricate the IRS from the costly and time-consuming business of fact finding necessary under the former version of the statute.”); Blanchard, 401 S.E.2d at 718 (Fletchner, J., dissenting) (“Congress is indifferent to the question of which parent claims the exempt 2015Thus, it appears, the default rule laid out in the revenue code appears to be one of “administrative convenience to the IRS,” Dodge, 385 P.3d at 513 (quoting Monterey County v. Cornejo, 53 Cal.3d 1271 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d 586, 590 (1991)); see also Hart v. Hart, 774 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Ky.App.1989) (“Congress was attempting to extricate the IRS from the costly and time-consuming business of fact finding necessary under the former version of the statute.”); Blanchard, 401 S.E.2d at 718 (Fletchner, J., dissenting) (“Congress is indifferent to the question of which parent claims the exempt | 1 | 1 |
Blanchard v. Blanchardgreen1 sentence2015Thus, it appears, the default rule laid out in the revenue code appears to be one of “administrative convenience to the IRS,” Dodge, 385 P.3d at 513 (quoting Monterey County v. Cornejo, 53 Cal.3d 1271 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d 586, 590 (1991)); see also Hart v. Hart, 774 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Ky.App.1989) (“Congress was attempting to extricate the IRS from the costly and time-consuming business of fact finding necessary under the former version of the statute.”); Blanchard, 401 S.E.2d at 718 (Fletchner, J., dissenting) (“Congress is indifferent to the question of which parent claims the exempt | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2008(Internal citations omitted.)") [5] Campbell v. Commonwealth, 732 S.W.2d 878 (Ky. 1987). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Lockett v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2005Appellant’s reliance on Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), is misplaced. 2005Appellant’s reliance on Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion), is misplaced. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.