scheduled hearing (Kentucky) · Go Syfert
← Kentucky issues

scheduled hearing in Kentucky

5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
London v. Collinsgreen
kyctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Kentucky opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See London v. Collins, 242 S.W.3d 351, 357 (Ky. App. 2007) (holding that though permanency order in dependency case might otherwise qualify as a custody decree, permanency order at issue was not a valid custody decree in part because parent was not given formal notice that the scheduled hearing was for purposes of resolving custody).15 Thus, we VACATE the family court’s awarding sole custody to Father and remand for further proceedings in conformity with this Opinion.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Murphy v. Murphy green
kyctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2025Id. at 868 .

12025–2025
Gormley v. Judicial Conduct Commission green
ky · 2011
1 sentence

2024In Gormley, there was a scheduled hearing before Judge Gormley on a pro se motion by a wife to modify the no contact provision of a domestic violence order previously entered against her husband. 332 S.W.3d at 721 .

12024–2024
Kentucky Bar Association v. Justin Ross Morgan neutral
ky · 2016
1 sentence

2022Id.

12022–2022
Diaz v. Barker green
kyctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2018But, two days before the scheduled hearing date, Lindsey filed a second affidavit pursuant to KRS 26A.020, seeking recusal of the circuit judge and the appointment of a special judge, which stayed the action. "[U]nder the recusal remedy set out in KRS 26A.020(1), the [circuit] judge is not to make the recusal determination and the case is to be held in abeyance pending the Chief Justice's determination." Diaz v. Barker , 254 S.W.3d 835 , 838 (Ky. App. 2008) (citation omitted).

12018–2018

Where else courts name it

CA 87 (1968–2026) PA 79 (1952–2026) NY 78 (1957–2026) OH 60 (1990–2026) FL 50 (1980–2026) TX 41 (1996–2025) IL 40 (1971–2026) AL 25 (1987–2026) GA 21 (1988–2025) NC 18 (1977–2022) WA 17 (1999–2024) LA 17 (1986–2024) IN 15 (1978–2024) AZ 14 (1978–2026) MO 14 (1978–2025) DC 12 (1982–2021) UT 12 (2004–2025) MD 12 (1974–2020) MS 11 (1994–2025) CT 11 (1994–2024) VA 10 (1986–2026) OK 10 (1977–2017) ME 10 (1970–2024) MA 10 (1981–2024) NE 9 (2004–2026) IA 9 (1994–2024) DE 9 (2017–2026) MI 8 (1968–2023) NJ 8 (1960–2022) NM 8 (1983–2025) AR 7 (1997–2026) VT 7 (1987–2022) ND 7 (1989–2019) NV 7 (1986–2023) TN 6 (2002–2025) WI 6 (1975–2012) CO 6 (1978–2019) OR 6 (1974–2021) SC 6 (1981–2021) KY 5 (2018–2025) ID 4 (1987–2011) KS 4 (1997–2021) MN 4 (1987–2008) WY 3 (1988–1998) RI 3 (1967–1986) AK 3 (1993–2013) WV 3 (1998–2003) SD 3 (1982–2000) HI 3 (1996–2020) NH 2 (2006–2024) VI 2 (2013–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check