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.
18 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lamb v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2026“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). 2025“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). | 15 | 16 |
Martin v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 7 2006). “lmplicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). “‘Manifest’ injustice requires showing a probability of a different result or error__so fundamental as to threaten a defendants entitlement to due‘process of law, i.e., the error so seriously affected the fairness integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” Spears, 448 S.W.3d at 7 2017“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). “‘Manifest’ injustice requires showing a probability of a different result or errorrso fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due_process of law, i.e., the error so seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” Spears, 448 S.W.3d at 791 (citing Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, | 4 | 4 |
Nami Res. Co. v. Asher Land & Mineral, Ltd.green2 sentences2025Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Nami Resources Company, L.L.C. v. Asher Land and Mineral, Ltd., 554 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Ky. 2018). 2023“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Nami Res., 554 S.W.3d at 338 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017)). | 2 | 2 |
Brewer v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2022“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Id. (quoting Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017)).19 In hearings before the Commission, the Kentucky Rules of Evidence apply. 2017Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 7 2006). “lmplicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). “‘Manifest’ injustice requires showing a probability of a different result or error__so fundamental as to threaten a defendants entitlement to due‘process of law, i.e., the error so seriously affected the fairness integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” Spears, 448 S.W.3d at 7 | 1 | 2 |
McCloud v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023“In order for an error to be palpable, the error must be so egregious as to be shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” McCloud v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 780, 788-89 (Ky. 2009) (internal quotation marks citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spears v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). “‘Manifest’ injustice requires showing a probability of a different result or errorso fundamental as to threaten a defendants entitlement to due_process of law, i.e., the error so seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” Spears, 448 S.W.3d at 791 (citing Martin v. Commonwealth 207 S.W.3d l, 3 2017“Implicit in the concept of palpable error correction is that the error is so obvious that the trial court was remiss in failing to act upon it sua sponte.” Lamb v. Commonwealth 510 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Ky. 2017). “‘Manifest’ injustice requires showing a probability of a different result or errorrso fundamental as to threaten a defendant's entitlement to due_process of law, i.e., the error so seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be “shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable.” Spears, 448 S.W.3d at 791 (citing Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Martin v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2013This Court directly addressed the issue of unpreserved allegations of instructional error as discussed by Criminal Rule 9.54(2) and the concept of palpable error review in Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340 (Ky.2013). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.