case of an unpreserved error in Kentucky

2025See Oakley, 391 S.W.3d at 380 (appellate court must consider “in the case of an unpreserved error, whether palpable error review is being requested and may be granted”); CR 61.02 (“A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.”).

2025One is labeled a temporary power of attorney. 11 See Gasaway v. Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 298 , 313-14 (Ky. 2023) (stating one does not have to make identical supporting arguments to a trial court to preserve an allegation of error or issue for appellate review, although a party may forfeit an issue by failing to raise the issue to the trial court at all). -23- of review, or in the case of an unpreserved error, whether palpable error review is being requested and may be granted.” Turner v. Turner, 672 S.W.3d 43 , 51 (Ky. App. 2023) (quoting Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Ky. App. 2012))

2022“Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief or its offending portions, CR 76.12(8)(a); or (3) to review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only[.]” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2022Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Ky. App. 2012). 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- “Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief or its offending portions, CR 76.12(8)(a); or (3) to review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only[.]” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2022“Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief or its offending portions, CR 76.12(8)(a); or (3) to review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only[.]” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2022Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Ky. App. 2012). 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- “Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief or its offending portions, CR 76.12(8)(a); or (3) to review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only[.]” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010) (citing Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)).

2021It also has a bearing on 1 See Putnam v. Fanning, 495 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. 1973); accord Goldman v. Eichenholz, 851 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Ky. 1993). -2- whether we employ the recognized standard of review, or in the case of an unpreserved error, whether palpable error review is being requested and may be granted.” Oakley v. Oakley, 391 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Ky. App. 2012).