inflexible rule in Kentucky

1927Commonwealth v. Hatfield Coal Co., 186 Ky. 411 , 217 S. W. 125 .

1927Commonwealth v. Hatfield Coal Co., 186 Ky. 411 , 217 S. W. 125 .

2023Inherent in that summary judgment standard is an inflexible rule: a court may only “determine” the presence of “genuine issues to be tried[;]” the court may not “resolve” any genuine issues because all “[q]uestions relating to the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence must await trial.” Id.

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge’s oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that “written statement” be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as “written statement” of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court’s decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge's oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that "written statement" be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as "written statement" of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court's decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge’s oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that “written statement” be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as “written statement” of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court’s decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge's oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that "written statement" be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as "written statement" of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court's decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge’s oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that “written statement” be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as “written statement” of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court’s decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge's oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that "written statement" be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as "written statement" of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court's decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge’s oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that “written statement” be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as “written statement” of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court’s decision.); United Sta

2010See United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993) (District judge's oral recitation of findings from bench, in support of revocation of supervised release, satisfied requirement that "written statement" be provided, insofar as hearing was transcribed verbatim.); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (Transcribed oral finding can serve as "written statement" of evidence and reasons for revoking supervised release under due process claim when transcript and record compiled before trial judge enables reviewing court to determine basis of trial court's decision.); United Sta

2005In the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution or he simply may come to realize that information possessed by the state has a broader significance.” Id. at 381 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 . (emphasis added).

2005In the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution or he simply may come to realize that information possessed by the state has a broader significance.” Id. at 381 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 . (emphasis added).

1995The U.S. Supreme Court in Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 783 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987), stated as follows: We have never held that the possibility of prejudice that “inheres in almost every instance of multiple representation” justifies the adoption of an inflexible rule that would presume prejudice in all such cases.

1995The U.S. Supreme Court in Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 783 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3120 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987), stated as follows: We have never held that the possibility of prejudice that “inheres in almost every instance of multiple representation” justifies the adoption of an inflexible rule that would presume prejudice in all such cases.

1978Then Colley v. Colley, Ky., 460 S.W.2d 821 (1970), discarded the “one-third to the wife” rule as a legal fiction.

1977See, e. g., Surabian v. Surabian, 362 Mass. 342 , 285 N.E.2d 909 (1972); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248 , 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Chavez v. Chavez, 82 N.M. 624 , 485 P.2d 735 (1971).

1977See, e. g., Surabian v. Surabian, 362 Mass. 342 , 285 N.E.2d 909 (1972); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248 , 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Chavez v. Chavez, 82 N.M. 624 , 485 P.2d 735 (1971).

1977See, e. g., Surabian v. Surabian, 362 Mass. 342 , 285 N.E.2d 909 (1972); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248 , 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Chavez v. Chavez, 82 N.M. 624 , 485 P.2d 735 (1971).

1977See, e. g., Surabian v. Surabian, 362 Mass. 342 , 285 N.E.2d 909 (1972); Beebe v. Beebe, 227 Ga. 248 , 179 S.E.2d 758 (1971); Chavez v. Chavez, 82 N.M. 624 , 485 P.2d 735 (1971).

1958In Johnson v. Ducobu, Ky., 258 S.W.2d 509, 510 , the court said: “We are unwilling to go so far as to announce an inflexible rule that direct benefit to the estate must invariably be shown to justify an allowance of costs, attorney fees, or expenses.

1949As stated in the case of Turner v. Ewald et al., 290 Ky. 833 , 162 S. W. 2d 181 , the amount allowed in gross from a husband’s estate is not to be determined by an inflexible rule but by the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

1949As stated in the case of Turner v. Ewald et al., 290 Ky. 833 , 162 S. W. 2d 181 , the amount allowed in gross from a husband’s estate is not to be determined by an inflexible rule but by the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

1943Portwood v. Outon, 1 B.

1938“Appellee’s honesty is not questioned, nor is his efficiency, but it has been found that his plan of operation is not fair to the hapless borrower with whom he proposes to deal.” Also, in Hurt v. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage Company, 215 Ky. 739 , 286 S. W. 1055 , involving usury laws, the court said [page 1056]: “The cupidity of lenders, and the willingness of borrowers to concede whatever m'ay be demanded or to promise whatever may be exacted in order to obtain temporary relief from financial embarrassment, as would naturally be expected, have resulted in a great variety of devices to evade th

1938“Appellee’s honesty is not questioned, nor is his efficiency, but it has been found that his plan of operation is not fair to the hapless borrower with whom he proposes to deal.” Also, in Hurt v. Crystal Ice & Cold Storage Company, 215 Ky. 739 , 286 S. W. 1055 , involving usury laws, the court said [page 1056]: “The cupidity of lenders, and the willingness of borrowers to concede whatever m'ay be demanded or to promise whatever may be exacted in order to obtain temporary relief from financial embarrassment, as would naturally be expected, have resulted in a great variety of devices to evade th

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1934Wise v. Goldsmith’s Adm’r, 239 Ky. 819 , 40 S. W. (2d) 345 ; Kellum v. Browning’s Adm’r et al., 231 Ky. 308 , 21 S. W. (2d) 459, 463 ; Murphy’s Ex’r v. Bryan, 230 Ky. 244 , 18 S. W. (2d) 978 ; Dean’s Ex’r v. Griffin et al., 217 Ky. 603 , 290 S. W. 483 ; Jones, Adm’r v. Jones et al., 210 Ky. 38 , 275 S. W. 7 .

1897(Lawson v. Morton, 6 Dana, 471 ; Wood v. Keys, 6 Paige’s Chan.