penalty violation in Kentucky

2009In 2003, this Court held in Peterson v. Shake, 120 S.W.3d 707 (Ky.2003) that where an offender was released from prison and registered as a sex offender before the 2000 version of KRS 17.510 became effective, the offender was subject to the earlier version of the statute which set the penalty for a violation of the statute as a Class A misdemeanor.

2009In 2003, this Court held in Peterson v. Shake, 120 S.W.3d 707 (Ky.2003) that where an offender was released from prison and registered as a sex offender before the 2000 version of KRS 17.510 became effective, the offender was subject to the earlier version of the statute which set the penalty for a violation of the statute as a Class A misdemeanor.

1923Another section prohibited construction of any character of ‘building within the corporate limits of the town without a permit from the engineer, which section under this court’s opinion in the case of City of Monticello v. Bates, 163 Ky. 38 , was and is void because of arbitrary power lodged with the • engineer.

1917It is next said that as the fire limits ordinance provided a penalty for its violation, this remedy was exclusive and the city must resort to it for protection against violations of the ordinance, and, therefore, the city could not in a civil suit enjoin the erection of a proposed building in violation of the ordinance, or ask the removal of a building or structure erected in violation of the ordinance ; and the opinion in the case of City of Monticello v. Bates, 163 Ky. 38 , is relied on in support of this contention.

1912And in Hepner v. U. S., 213 U. S., 103 , it was held that an action to recover the penalty incurred under the alién contract labor law for inducing an alien to migrate to the United States for the purpose of performing labor there, was not so far criminal in its nature as to prevent the direction of a verdict in favor of the government plaintiff, and that where it appeared from undisputed testimony that the defendant had committed the offense charged against him, the trial court might so direct a verdict.

1911It is settled law that ‘a certain sum, or sum which can readily be reduced to a certainty, prescribed in the statute as a penalty for the violation of law, may be recovered by a civil action, even if it may also be recovered in a proceeding which is technically criminal. ’ Hepner v. U. S., 213 U. S. 103 . ****** The power of the legislature to declare an offense, and to exclude the elements of knowledge and due diligence from any inquiry as to its commission, cannot, we think, be questioned.” As further illustrating the harmony of opinion manifested by the Federal courts with respect to this q

2023Bob Hook Chevrolet Isuzu, Inc., 983 S.W.2d at 490 . 2 KRS Chapters 500 through 534. 3 KRS Chapter 218A does not state a penalty for violation of the statute, but merely refers to the general misdemeanor sentencing statute.

2003Bisset v. Goss, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 71 (1972).

2003Bisset v. Goss, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 71 (1972).

1980We know, through Gibbs Automatic Moulding Company v. Bullock, Ky., 438 S.W.2d 793 (1969), that either the employer must know that the regulation exists or the regulation must have been in existence long enough to create a presumption of knowledge before the employer may be assessed a penalty for its violation.

1950Although appellant is subject to a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law as set out in KRS 313.990, it is well settled in this state that an injunuction will lie to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 313., Ky. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 213 Ky. 382 , 281 S. W. 188 ; Jones v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 233 , 213 S. W. 2d 983 ; and cases therein cited.

1950Although appellant is subject to a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law as set out in KRS 313.990, it is well settled in this state that an injunuction will lie to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 313., Ky. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 213 Ky. 382 , 281 S. W. 188 ; Jones v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 233 , 213 S. W. 2d 983 ; and cases therein cited.

1950Although appellant is subject to a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law as set out in KRS 313.990, it is well settled in this state that an injunuction will lie to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 313., Ky. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 213 Ky. 382 , 281 S. W. 188 ; Jones v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 233 , 213 S. W. 2d 983 ; and cases therein cited.

1950Although appellant is subject to a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law as set out in KRS 313.990, it is well settled in this state that an injunuction will lie to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapter 313., Ky. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Payne, 213 Ky. 382 , 281 S. W. 188 ; Jones v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 233 , 213 S. W. 2d 983 ; and cases therein cited.

1944Liberty Warehouse Company v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Op. Ass’n, 208 Ky. 643 , 271 S. W. 695 .

1944Liberty Warehouse Company v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Op. Ass’n, 208 Ky. 643 , 271 S. W. 695 .

1934Neutzel, Clerk, v. Williams, 191 Ky. 351 , 230 S. W. 942 ; Gibson v. Commonwealth, 209 Ky. *23 101, 272 S. W. 43 .

1934Neutzel, Clerk, v. Williams, 191 Ky. 351 , 230 S. W. 942 ; Gibson v. Commonwealth, 209 Ky. *23 101, 272 S. W. 43 .

1934Neutzel, Clerk, v. Williams, 191 Ky. 351 , 230 S. W. 942 ; Gibson v. Commonwealth, 209 Ky. *23 101, 272 S. W. 43 .

1923The seventh -section of the same act defines the words “illicit still.” Roberts v. Comth., 199 Ky. 28 .

1922Co. v. Lincoln, 84 N. W. 803 ; Davis v. Burke, 179 U. S. 399 .) The absence of a penalty for the violation of restrictive provisions is a circumstance tending to support the view that they are not self-executing but it is by no means a conclusive test, for, as stated, the great weight of authority is that they are self-executing, and may be enforced by the counts independent of legislative -action.

1919Lemon v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 822 ; Anderson v. Sandy Valley Ry.

1916It is argued for the Commonwealth that, inajsmuch as the defendant, Harrison Turner, did not file a response, the judgment against him at least must be affirmed; and that the judgment against the surety, Rufus Turner, is not an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court, and ought to be affirmed. ' Discretion to fix the penalty for a violation of a bail bond is conferred upon the trial court by Section 98 of the Criminal Code which is as follows: “If, before judgment is entered against the bail, the defendant be surrendered or arrested, the court may, at its discretion, remit the whole

1912The prohibition in the Federal Constitution as to former jeopardy is identical in terms with that of the Kentucky Constitution; nevertheless, in U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S., 475 , it was held that an action to recover a penalty for the violation of the customs administrative act, which provides for both fine and punishment, was not criminal in substance, so as to entitle the defendant to be confronted with the witnesses on the trial.

1908In Mitchell v. State, 12 Neb. 538 , 11 N. W. 848 , an action was instituted to recover a fine for the sale of intoxicating liquors to an infant without the consent of his parents.