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.
15 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1929–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morgan & Pottinger, Attorneys, P.S.C. v. Bottsred1 sentence2025But if the tort claim is based on the institution of the action, the privilege has no applicability whatsoever.” Morgan & Pottinger, Att’ys, P.S.C. v. Botts, 348 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Ky. 2011) (Noble, J., dissenting), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 27, 2011), and overruled by Maggard v. Kinney, 576 S.W.3d 559 (Ky. 2019). -8- Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 , 566, 69 A.3d 880 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Jarvisgreen2 sentences2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). 2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Slaven v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2004The rule is that, “an out-of-court statement of a witness who is precluded from testifying because of the invocation of the spousal privilege is admissible if that statement falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule and if it does not divulge a confidential marital communication.” Slaven v. Commonwealth, Ky., 962 S.W.2d 845, 853 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc. Five Star Products, Inc. And H. Nash Babcockgreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Josegreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Abrahamsred2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
Stidham v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) (“If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.”) (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) (“Because privileges opera 2002Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("If the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege his claim will be rejected.") (quotation omitted); United States v. Abrahams, 905 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir.1990) (proponent has the burden of establishing all of the conditions necessary for application of the privilege), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1997); cf. Stidham v. Clark, Ky., 74 S.W.3d 719, 725 (2002) ("Because privileges opera | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1986See Bradley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 642, 643 (1953), (“The privilege of immunity of an accused person from having his silence questioned is fundamental and should be held inviolate.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes
green
2 sentences2015Moreover, although Appellants rely heavily on Jane Doe's holding, they failed to take heed of the New York court's warning: "[for the future, we recommend that a party seeking to protect documents from disclosure compile a privilege log in order to aid the court in its assessment of a privilege claim." Id. 2015Moreover, although Appellants rely heavily on Jane Doe's holding, they failed to take heed of the New York court's warning: "[for the future, we recommend that a party seeking to protect documents from disclosure compile a privilege log in order to aid the court in its assessment of a privilege claim." Id. | 4 | 2015–2015 |
Simms v. Seaman
green
2 sentences2025But if the tort claim is based on the institution of the action, the privilege has no applicability whatsoever.” Morgan & Pottinger, Att’ys, P.S.C. v. Botts, 348 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Ky. 2011) (Noble, J., dissenting), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 27, 2011), and overruled by Maggard v. Kinney, 576 S.W.3d 559 (Ky. 2019). -8- Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 , 566, 69 A.3d 880 (2013). 2025But if the tort claim is based on the institution of the action, the privilege has no applicability whatsoever.” Morgan & Pottinger, Att’ys, P.S.C. v. Botts, 348 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Ky. 2011) (Noble, J., dissenting), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 27, 2011), and overruled by Maggard v. Kinney, 576 S.W.3d 559 (Ky. 2019). -8- Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 , 566, 69 A.3d 880 (2013). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Maggard v. Kinney
green
1 sentence2025But if the tort claim is based on the institution of the action, the privilege has no applicability whatsoever.” Morgan & Pottinger, Att’ys, P.S.C. v. Botts, 348 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Ky. 2011) (Noble, J., dissenting), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 27, 2011), and overruled by Maggard v. Kinney, 576 S.W.3d 559 (Ky. 2019). -8- Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 , 566, 69 A.3d 880 (2013). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Smith
green
2 sentences2011See Wallace v. *604 Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai`i 92, 176 P.3d 91 (2008). 2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Jarvis v. Drake
green
2 sentences2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). 2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel
green
2 sentences2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). 2011See Wallace v. Jarvis, 119 N.C.App. 582 , 459 S.E.2d 44 (1995); Jarvis v. Drake, 250 Kan. 645 , 830 P.2d 23 (1992) (interpreting rule which affords judicial immunity to participants in the attorney discipline process); In re Smith, 989 P.2d 165 (Colo.1999) (interpreting former rule); Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai'i 92 , 176 P.3d 91 (2008). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Arnett v. Meade
green
1 sentence1980Arnett v. Meade, supra. The court allowed Schworer’s claim of the privilege because the defense stated that it would attempt to impeach Schworer by questioning him concerning a $500.00 contribution to someone other than Gettys. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Stacker v. Railroad
green
1 sentence1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Howard v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Morse v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . 1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Romes v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . 1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Wireman v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . 1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Farley v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . 1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Peck v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . 1953Howard v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 356 , 61 S.W. 766 ; Welch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 108 S.W. 863 ; Morse v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 294 , 111 S.W. 714 ; Romes v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 334 , 175 S.W. 669 ; Wireman v. Commonwealth, 203 Ky. 57 , 261 S.W. 862 ; Farley v. Commonwealth, 263 Ky. 769 , 93 S.W.2d 858 ; Peck v. Commonwealth, 286 Ky. 347 , 150 S.W.2d 919 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
green
1 sentence1941Though the question was not presented for decision, in discussing the general scope of the Constitution of the United States in the Dartmouth College Case, Chief Justice Marshall said: “It [the Constitution of the United States] never has been understood to restrict the general right of the legislature to legislate on the subject of divorces.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 519, 629 , 17 U. S. 518, 629 , 4 L. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Wilson v. United States
green
1 sentence1938In Wilson v. U. S., 221 U. S. 361 , 381, 31 S. Ct. 538 , 545, 55 L. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
United States v. Mulligan
green
1 sentence1938C., 268 F. 893 , domestic and foreign eases above cited and many others of similar import not cited carefully safeguard the privilege and immunity of the citizen in his purely private affairs and unregulated business and carefully distinguish private and unregulated business from business engaged in only *808 by permission of the government and under government regulation. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
State ex rel. McClory v. Donovan
green
2 sentences1938In State v. Donovan, 10 N. D. 203 , 86 N. W. 709 , it was held that under a statute requiring a druggist to keep a record of sale of intoxicating liquors by bim which should be subject to public inspection at reasonable_ times, the privilege and immunity against self-incrimination was not available to him with respect to hooks kept under such law. 1938In State v. Donovan, 10 N. D. 203 , 86 N. W. 709 , it was held that under a statute requiring a druggist to keep a record of sale of intoxicating liquors by bim which should be subject to public inspection at reasonable_ times, the privilege and immunity against self-incrimination was not available to him with respect to hooks kept under such law. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Deposit Bank of Owensboro v. Daveiss County
neutral
2 sentences1937Mr. Cooley in his celebrated work on Taxation (4th Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1404, sec. 672, approves the rule and states it in this language: “Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must be beyond reasonable doubt.” Almost four pages are filled with citations in support of that text, including the domestic cases of Deposit Bank of Owensboro v. Daviess County, 102 Ky. 174 , 39 S. W. 1030 , 19 Ky. Law Rep. 248 , 44 L. 1937Mr. Cooley in his celebrated work on Taxation (4th Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1404, sec. 672, approves the rule and states it in this language: “Exemptions are never presumed, the burden is on a claimant to establish clearly his right to exemption, and an alleged grant of exemption will be strictly construed and cannot be made out by inference or implication but must be beyond reasonable doubt.” Almost four pages are filled with citations in support of that text, including the domestic cases of Deposit Bank of Owensboro v. Daviess County, 102 Ky. 174 , 39 S. W. 1030 , 19 Ky. Law Rep. 248 , 44 L. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Jones Bros. v. City of Louisville
neutral
2 sentences1937Such a privilege or immunity, cannot be made out by inference or implication, but must be conferred in terms too, clear and plain to be mistaken, and in fact admitting of no reasonable doubt, and where it exists it should be carefully scrutinized and not permitted to extend either in scope or duration beyond what the terms of the concession clearly require or allow, or so as to create an absolute and irrevocable exemption unless the language' of the statute clearly so requires.” Included in the lengthy list of cases cited in support of that text are City of Lexington v. Lexington Leader Compan 1937Such a privilege or immunity, cannot be made out by inference or implication, but must be conferred in terms too, clear and plain to be mistaken, and in fact admitting of no reasonable doubt, and where it exists it should be carefully scrutinized and not permitted to extend either in scope or duration beyond what the terms of the concession clearly require or allow, or so as to create an absolute and irrevocable exemption unless the language' of the statute clearly so requires.” Included in the lengthy list of cases cited in support of that text are City of Lexington v. Lexington Leader Compan | 1 | 1937–1937 |
City of Lexington v. Lexington Leader Co.
green
2 sentences1937Such a privilege or immunity, cannot be made out by inference or implication, but must be conferred in terms too, clear and plain to be mistaken, and in fact admitting of no reasonable doubt, and where it exists it should be carefully scrutinized and not permitted to extend either in scope or duration beyond what the terms of the concession clearly require or allow, or so as to create an absolute and irrevocable exemption unless the language' of the statute clearly so requires.” Included in the lengthy list of cases cited in support of that text are City of Lexington v. Lexington Leader Compan 1937Such a privilege or immunity, cannot be made out by inference or implication, but must be conferred in terms too, clear and plain to be mistaken, and in fact admitting of no reasonable doubt, and where it exists it should be carefully scrutinized and not permitted to extend either in scope or duration beyond what the terms of the concession clearly require or allow, or so as to create an absolute and irrevocable exemption unless the language' of the statute clearly so requires.” Included in the lengthy list of cases cited in support of that text are City of Lexington v. Lexington Leader Compan | 1 | 1937–1937 |
People's Transit Co. v. Louisville Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1929Co., 220 Ky. 728 , 295 S. W. 1055 ; City of Princeton v. Princeton Elec. 1929Co., 220 Ky. 728 , 295 S. W. 1055 ; City of Princeton v. Princeton Elec. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.