Appellees motion in Kentucky

2025Finally, “[t]he standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996). -5- ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Calloway Circuit Court committed reversible error in granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment.

2006The Appellees claim that the oral statements made by the four Deacons were read from parts of the "September 22, 2002" letter that was later sent to every person on the church’s mailing list. 4 . 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky.App.1996). 5 .

2026See Id. at 507 n.3.

2024Columbia Amusement Co. v. Hughes, 375 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Ky. 1964).

2024(Appellees’ brief, pp. 21–24, 28–29 (quoting North Carolina v. Berger, 781 S.E.2d 248, 257 (N.C. 2016) (“[C]ontrol that the Governor has . . . depends on his ability to appoint the commissioners . . . and to remove them from office.” (emphasis added); Record (R.) at 999 (“The Court is persuaded by the analysis in State v. Berger . . . .”)).

2024Appellees rely on the North Carolina cases that persuaded the circuit court, saying “the governor must always have enough control over [board appointees] to perform his constitutional duty” to see the laws are faithfully executed and that “[t]he degree of control. . . depends on his ability to remove them from office.” (Appellees’ brief, p. 22 (quoting McCrory, 781 S.E.2d at 257)).

2024“The commonly accepted standard for constructive discharge is whether, based upon objective criteria, the conditions created by the employer’s action are so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.” Northeast Health Management, Inc. v. Cotton, 56 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Ky. App. 2001) (internal quotation marks, footnote, and citation omitted).

2024The court found conclusive proof to the contrary; i.e., that “Plaintiff pleading guilty to Resisting Arrest demonstrates that the officers were acting reasonably and in good faith.” (Id.) Our appellate review of that judgment follows. 10 Kentucky Revised Statutes. -14- STANDARD OF REVIEW “An appellate court’s role in reviewing a summary judgment is to determine whether the trial court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact exist[ed] and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Feltner v. PJ Operations, LLC, 568 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. App. 2018).

2023Standard of Review Summary judgments are significant for those seeking immunity, “as the defense renders one immune not just from liability, but also from suit itself.” Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Ky. 2010) (citing Rowan County v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469, 474 (Ky. 2006)).

2023Standard of Review Summary judgments are significant for those seeking immunity, “as the defense renders one immune not just from liability, but also from suit itself.” Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235, 240 (Ky. 2010) (citing Rowan County v. Sloas, 201 S.W.3d 469, 474 (Ky. 2006)).

2023Neither does Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 62 (1976), merit precedential or persuasive effect for its supposed historical recognition of third-party standing for abortion providers.

2023The trial court should not grant the motion “unless it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.” James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875, 883 (Ky. App. 2002) (citation omitted). 2 The court reasoned that Appellees’ claim was more akin to tortious interference with a prospective business advantage but determined that either way the claim was barred by statute of limitations. 3 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- Appellants make two arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in considering matters outside the p

2022They assert that the existence of possible, additional statements means they did not fail to state a claim for relief, and that the circuit court should not have granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, which was predicated on the affirmative defense of judicial privilege. -6- “The requisite elements for a defamation claim are: (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence o

2021Appellants cite to Equitania Insurance Company v. Slone & Garrett, P.S.C., 191 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Ky. 2006), in which the Court held, “[i]n regard to pleadings, Kentucky has always followed the notice pleading theory which only requires a short and plain statement of claim demonstrating that relief is warranted and necessary.

2021Standard of Review As stated by the Kentucky Supreme Court, “the proper function of summary judgment is to terminate litigation when, as a matter of law, it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991) (citation omitted).

2020“A party opposing a motion for -11- summary judgment cannot rely merely on the unsupported allegations of his pleadings, but is required to present some affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” Godman v. City of Fort Wright, 234 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Ky. App. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017For example, Chesley cites the Kansas Supreme Court case of Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc. The opinion expressly says "[w]e follow the federal cases interpreting 54(b) certifications.” 265 Kan. 141, 143 , 958 P.2d 1157, 1159 (1998).

2017For example, Chesley cites the Kansas Supreme Court case of Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc. The opinion expressly says "[w]e follow the federal cases interpreting 54(b) certifications.” 265 Kan. 141, 143 , 958 P.2d 1157, 1159 (1998).

2016Id. citing Johnson v. Smith, 885 S.W.2d 944, 949 (Ky.1994).

2006Columbia Sussex Corp., Inc. v. Hay, 627 S.W.2d 270, 276 (Ky.App.1981). 6 .