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.
26 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1965–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Adkins v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779, 788 (Ky. 2003) (“Although nervousness alone is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, it is an important factor in the analysis.”); Commonwealth v. Marr, 250 S.W.3d 624, 627 (Ky. 2008) (“The police are permitted to take into account their surroundings - and whether a particular location has a reputation for being a ‘known drug’ area -when forming a reasonable and articulable suspicion.”). 2023“Although nervousness alone is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, it is an important factor in the analysis.” Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779, 788 (Ky. 2003) (citation omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Deutsch v. Sheinred2 sentences2003Causation In Deutsch v. Skein, Ky., 597 S.W.2d 141, 143-44 (1980), we adopted the substantial factor test for causation set forth in § 431 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is entitled “What Constitutes Legal Cause.” This section states in pertinent part that the “actor’s negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” Comment (a) to § 431 explains what is meant by “substantial factor”: In order to be a legal cause of another’s harm, it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not been 2003Causation In Deutsch v. Shein, Ky., 597 S.W.2d 141, 143-44 (1980), we adopted the substantial factor test for causation set forth in § 431 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is entitled "What Constitutes Legal Cause." This section states in pertinent part that the "actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if *92 his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm." Comment (a) to § 431 explains what is meant by "substantial factor": In order to be a legal cause of another's harm, it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not b | 2 | 7 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2020Id. at 795 (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 , 560–61 (Tenn. 1993)). 72 Id. at 795–96. 2020Id. at 795 (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 , 560–61 (Tenn. 1993)). 72 Id. at 795–96. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Marrgreen2 sentences2024Adkins v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 779, 788 (Ky. 2003) (“Although nervousness alone is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, it is an important factor in the analysis.”); Commonwealth v. Marr, 250 S.W.3d 624, 627 (Ky. 2008) (“The police are permitted to take into account their surroundings - and whether a particular location has a reputation for being a ‘known drug’ area -when forming a reasonable and articulable suspicion.”). 2021“Although nervousness alone is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, it is an important factor in the analysis.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. McRaegreen2 sentences2013Adkins, 96 S.W.3d at 788 (“Although nervousness alone is insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, it is an important factor in the analysis.”); see also United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1534 n. 4 (10th Cir.1996) (“We have held that nervousness alone is not sufficient to justify further detention; however, in combination with other suspicious circumstances, it might contribute to a finding of articulable suspicion.”). 2003United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1534 n. 4 (10th Cir.1996). | 1 | 2 |
Moberly v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023While nervousness can be a contributing factor, it is not the tipping point in this scenario just as this Court determined it was not with the very similar circumstances presented in Jones. 2019 WL 2321654 , at *4; see also Moberly v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.3d 26, 32 (Ky. 2018) (“Heightened nervousness is common among drivers detained by a police officer for a traffic violation.”). -17- This brings us to the remaining factor in this analysis which is Hale’s untruthfulness regarding his previous whereabouts. | 1 | 1 |
Asbury University v. Powellgreen1 sentence2016In a civil action seeking damages for a discharge motivated by sex discrimination, a ‘but for’ test is a fair interpretation of the substantial factor standard.”); see also Asbury University v. Powell, 486 S.W.3d 246, 255 (Ky,2016) (“since the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff,-“but for” causation suffices. ...”). | 1 | 1 |
House v. Kellermangreen1 sentence1980See, e. g., Harris v. Thompson, Ky., 497 S.W.2d 422, 431 (1973) (“substantial factor in causing the accident”); House v. Kellerman, supra at 385 (“substantial factor . accident”). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1980See, e. g., Harris v. Thompson, Ky., 497 S.W.2d 422, 431 (1973) (“substantial factor in causing the accident”); House v. Kellerman, supra at 385 (“substantial factor . accident”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Deutsch v. Sheinred2 sentences2003Causation In Deutsch v. Skein, Ky., 597 S.W.2d 141, 143-44 (1980), we adopted the substantial factor test for causation set forth in § 431 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is entitled “What Constitutes Legal Cause.” This section states in pertinent part that the “actor’s negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” Comment (a) to § 431 explains what is meant by “substantial factor”: In order to be a legal cause of another’s harm, it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not been 2003Causation In Deutsch v. Shein, Ky., 597 S.W.2d 141, 143-44 (1980), we adopted the substantial factor test for causation set forth in § 431 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is entitled "What Constitutes Legal Cause." This section states in pertinent part that the "actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if *92 his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm." Comment (a) to § 431 explains what is meant by "substantial factor": In order to be a legal cause of another's harm, it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not b | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. Keeney
green
2 sentences2020Deutsch v. Shein, 597 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Ky. 1980), abrogated on other grounds by Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2012). 2014In doing so this Court stated: “Our use of the substantial factor test in fashioning instructions in prior cases shows the test applied to the event which results in the injury, not the injury itself.” Id. at 145 . | 3 | 2014–2020 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 795 (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 , 560–61 (Tenn. 1993)). 72 Id. at 795–96. 2020Id. at 795 (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 , 560–61 (Tenn. 1993)). 72 Id. at 795–96. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Id. 1993In a civil action seeking damages for a discharge motivated by sex discrimination, a ‘but for’ test is a fair interpretation of the substantial factor standard.” Id. at 824 . | 2 | 1993–2011 |
First Property Management Corp. v. Zarebidaki
green
1 sentence2016Zarebidaki 867 S.W.2d at 188 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Lansdowne Swim Club
green
2 sentences1993Other elements described in Lansdowne, supra, are the membership’s control over the operation of the establishment, the purpose of the club’s existence, use of the facility by nonmembers and history of the organization. 1993Other elements described in Lansdowne, supra , are the membership's control over the operation of the establishment, the purpose of the club's existence, use of the facility by nonmembers and history of the organization. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1985The recent case of Ake v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) reenforces the accused's right to access to a psychiatrist's assistance at his trial when it is clear that his mental state at the time of the offense is a substantial factor in his defense. 1985The recent case of Ake v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) reenforces the accused's right to access to a psychiatrist's assistance at his trial when it is clear that his mental state at the time of the offense is a substantial factor in his defense. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Mayes
green
1 sentence1965Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Mayes, Ky., 388 S.W.2d 125 (1965). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.