18 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1934–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Halegreen2 sentences2017The best illustration of the forfeiture rule as it relates to the facts currently before us can be found in Thomas v. Schumaker, 360 S.W.2d 215 (Ky. 1962), overruled by Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24, 34 (Ky. 2003). 2017In practical effect, the forfeiture rule holds that “an unauthorized transfer of custody constitutes a de facto commutation of sentence because no mechanism exists for Kentucky to reclaim custody ....” Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24, 34-35 (Ky. 2003). | 3 | 3 |
Sebastian v. Floydgreen2 sentences2023The Court in Sebastian ruled that “[t]he seller’s remedy for breach of the contract is to obtain a judicial sale of the property.” Sebastian, 585 S.W.2d at 384 (emphasis added). 1980We reverse and remand under the authority of Sebastian v. Floyd, Ky., 585 S.W.2d 381 (1979). | 1 | 2 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015Compare Giles, 554 U.S. at 359 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (“The terms used to define the scope of the forfeiture rule suggest that the exception applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.”) with Giles, 554 U.S. at 386 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (Breyer, J., dissenting) ("With a few criminal law exceptions not here relevant, the law holds an individual responsible for consequences known likely to follow just as if that individual had intended to achieve them.... 2015Compare Giles, 554 U.S. at 359 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (“The terms used to define the scope of the forfeiture rule suggest that the exception applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.”) with Giles, 554 U.S. at 386 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (Breyer, J., dissenting) ("With a few criminal law exceptions not here relevant, the law holds an individual responsible for consequences known likely to follow just as if that individual had intended to achieve them.... | 1 | 1 |
Schoenbachler v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2006A palpable error is one that “affects the substantial rights of a party” and will result in “manifest injustice” if not considered by the court, and “[w]hat it really boils down to is that if upon a consideration of the whole case this court does not believe there is a substantial possibility that the result would have been any different, the irregularity will be held nonprejudicial.” Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 830, 836 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Schumakerred2 sentences2017The best illustration of the forfeiture rule as it relates to the facts currently before us can be found in Thomas v. Schumaker, 360 S.W.2d 215 (Ky. 1962), overruled by Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24, 34 (Ky. 2003). 2017The best illustration of the forfeiture rule as it relates to the facts currently before us can be found in Thomas v. Schumaker, 360 S.W.2d 215 (Ky. 1962), overruled by Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24, 34 (Ky. 2003). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Hensley
green
2 sentences2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . 1954George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 ; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E. 2d 113 ; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 ; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . | 2 | 1954–2012 |
George v. George
neutral
2 sentences2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . 1954George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 ; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E. 2d 113 ; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 ; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . | 2 | 1954–2012 |
Cohen v. Reisman
green
2 sentences2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . 2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . | 2 | 1954–2012 |
Marx v. Rice
green
2 sentences2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . 2012George v. George, 283 Ky. 381 , 141 S.W.2d 558 [(1940)]; Cohen v. Reisman, supra, 203 Ga. 684 , 48 S.E.2d 113 [ (1948) ]; Marx v. Rice, 1 N.J. 574 , 65 A.2d 48 , 9 A.L.R.2d 584 [ (1949) ]; Notes 5 A.L.R. 1372 . | 2 | 1954–2012 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Brown v. Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Ass'n
green
1 sentence2023The circuit court “ultimately denied all motions to intervene or dismiss and scheduled a forfeiture hearing where the actual registrants and owners of the seized domains could prove their innocence” and in its order specifically noted “that only the domain name owners, operators, and registrants had a legal interest in the domain names and only they or their representatives could defend against forfeiture.” Id. at 35 footnote omitted. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Harbin v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2021Harbin, 121 S.W.3d at 197 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Young
green
1 sentence2013Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009Davis, 547 U.S. at 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 ("We take no position on the standards necessary to demonstrate such forfeiture [of the right to confrontation], but federal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which codifies the forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard .... 2009Davis, 547 U.S. at 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 ("We take no position on the standards necessary to demonstrate such forfeiture [of the right to confrontation], but federal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which codifies the forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard .... | 1 | 2009–2009 |
City of Devondale v. Stallings
green
2 sentences2009Thus, while the Commonwealth's failure to give proper notice to and join the true property owners as parties to the proceeding may have been excused at the trial court level due to the heirs presence and participation at the forfeiture hearing, it cannot be excused on appeal as strict compliance with said procedural requirements is mandated by CR 73.02(2) as that rule is interpreted by the case law set forth in Stallings, supra , and its progeny. 2009Thus, while the Commonwealth’s failure to give proper notice to and join the true property owners as parties to the proceeding may have been excused at the trial court level due to the heirs presence and participation at the forfeiture hearing, it cannot be excused on appeal as strict compliance with said procedural requirements is mandated by CR 73.02(2) as that rule is interpreted by the case law set forth in Stallings, supra, and its progeny. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2009State courts tend to follow the same practice ....") (citation omitted). [56] Buckman, 2007 WL 858815 at *3. [57] Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.28(4)(c) permits the citation of unpublished opinions of the appellate courts of this Commonwealth rendered after January 1, 2003, if there is no published opinion that adequately addresses the issue before the court. [58] Giles, ___ U.S. at ___, 128 S.Ct. at 2691 . [59] Id. at 2691 n. 6. [60] See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 2008 WL 4186934 (E.D.Tenn. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Olden v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Monsanto
green
2 sentences2004In Monsanto [,] the court expressly acknowledged that general canons of statutory construction are to be used when statutory language is ambiguous. ( 491 U.S. at p. 611 , 109 S.Ct. at p. 2664 , 105 L.Ed.2d at p. 524 .) [[Image here]] The ambiguity of “subject to forfeiture” could be dispelled by additional statutory language which requires forfeiture upon proof of certain criteria at the forfeiture hearing. 2004In Monsanto [,] the court expressly acknowledged that general canons of statutory construction are to be used when statutory language is ambiguous. ( 491 U.S. at p. 611 , 109 S.Ct. at p. 2664 , 105 L.Ed.2d at p. 524 .) [[Image here]] The ambiguity of “subject to forfeiture” could be dispelled by additional statutory language which requires forfeiture upon proof of certain criteria at the forfeiture hearing. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1996We relied in part on the forfeiture rule as follows: “In short, while we respect the right of the parties here to fix liquidated damages by contract, we do not abandon our previous rule that forbids their award when nothing more than a penalty or forfeiture.” Id. at 706 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Real Estate Mort. Co. of Louisville v. Duke
green
2 sentences1979This holding comports with our decision in Real Estate and Mortgage Co. of Louisville v. Duke, 251 Ky. 385 , 65 S.W.2d 81 (1933), wherein it was stated at page 82 of 65 S.W.2d: “The forfeiture clause was intended simply as a security for the payment of the purchase price. 1979This holding comports with our decision in Real Estate and Mortgage Co. of Louisville v. Duke, 251 Ky. 385 , 65 S.W.2d 81 (1933), wherein it was stated at page 82 of 65 S.W.2d: “The forfeiture clause was intended simply as a security for the payment of the purchase price. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Schultz v. Cardwell
neutral
2 sentences1934Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, vol, 1, sec. 404; Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, vol. 2, sec. 194; Schultz v. Cardwell, 142 Wash. 489 , 253 P. 822 ; City Garage & Sales Company v. Ballenger, 214 Ala. 516 , 108 So. 257 . 1934Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, vol, 1, sec. 404; Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, vol. 2, sec. 194; Schultz v. Cardwell, 142 Wash. 489 , 253 P. 822 ; City Garage & Sales Company v. Ballenger, 214 Ala. 516 , 108 So. 257 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
City Garage & Sales Co. v. Ballenger
green
2 sentences1934Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, vol, 1, sec. 404; Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, vol. 2, sec. 194; Schultz v. Cardwell, 142 Wash. 489 , 253 P. 822 ; City Garage & Sales Company v. Ballenger, 214 Ala. 516 , 108 So. 257 . 1934Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, vol, 1, sec. 404; Tiffany on Landlord and Tenant, vol. 2, sec. 194; Schultz v. Cardwell, 142 Wash. 489 , 253 P. 822 ; City Garage & Sales Company v. Ballenger, 214 Ala. 516 , 108 So. 257 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.