5 Kentucky opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2004See Thompson, 56 S.W.3d at 410 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Prater
green
2 sentences2015This provision shall not apply to the parties to the proceeding." 3 Overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Prater, 324 S.W.3d 393 (Ky. 2010). 5 the matter. 2015This provision shall not apply to the parties to the proceeding." 3 Overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Prater, 324 S.W.3d 393 (Ky. 2010). the matter. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Franklin v. Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet
green
2 sentences2005In reviewing the “parallel procedures” which the General Assembly enacted after Franklin, supra —one procedure with formal evidentiary hearings on the record to contest the fact of the violation, but another requiring prepayment prior to the formal evidentiary hearing to contest the penalty — we note the wisdom in the Court of Appeals’ comment that “as a practical matter, the amount or propriety of the penalty imposed could be as critical as or perhaps even more weighty, than the fact of the violation itself.” 5 With this in mind, we are not unmindful of the rule of construction in constitutio 2005In reviewing the "parallel procedures" which the General Assembly enacted after Franklin, supra one procedure with formal evidentiary hearings on the record to contest the fact of the violation, but another requiring prepayment prior to the formal evidentiary hearing to contest the penalty we note the wisdom in the Court of Appeals' comment that "as a practical matter, the amount or propriety of the penalty imposed could be as critical as or perhaps even more weighty, than the fact of the violation itself." [5] With this in mind, we are not unmindful of the rule of construction in constitu | 2 | 2005–2005 |
United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers
green
2 sentences2005In reviewing the “parallel procedures” which the General Assembly enacted after Franklin, supra —one procedure with formal evidentiary hearings on the record to contest the fact of the violation, but another requiring prepayment prior to the formal evidentiary hearing to contest the penalty — we note the wisdom in the Court of Appeals’ comment that “as a practical matter, the amount or propriety of the penalty imposed could be as critical as or perhaps even more weighty, than the fact of the violation itself.” 5 With this in mind, we are not unmindful of the rule of construction in constitutio 2005In reviewing the “parallel procedures” which the General Assembly enacted after Franklin, supra —one procedure with formal evidentiary hearings on the record to contest the fact of the violation, but another requiring prepayment prior to the formal evidentiary hearing to contest the penalty — we note the wisdom in the Court of Appeals’ comment that “as a practical matter, the amount or propriety of the penalty imposed could be as critical as or perhaps even more weighty, than the fact of the violation itself.” 5 With this in mind, we are not unmindful of the rule of construction in constitutio | 2 | 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.