14 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See also Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.1962); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 381, 388 (Ky.1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration), cer t. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Ky.1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky.1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of 2000See also Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) and Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 1 (1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 22 (1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of two juro | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See also Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.1962); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 381, 388 (Ky.1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration), cer t. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Ky.1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky.1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of 2000See also Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) and Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 1 (1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 22 (1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of two juro | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Caudillgreen2 sentences2025Commonwealth v. Caudill, 540 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Ky. 2018). 2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 3 |
Marcum v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See also Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.1962); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 381, 388 (Ky.1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration), cer t. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Ky.1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky.1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of 2000See also Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) and Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 1 (1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 22 (1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of two juro | 1 | 2 |
Hendrickson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See also Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.1962); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 381, 388 (Ky.1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration), cer t. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Ky.1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky.1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of 2000See also Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) and Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 1 (1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 22 (1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of two juro | 1 | 2 |
Andrews v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2006See also Smith v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.2d 902, 906 (Ky.1962); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 381, 388 (Ky.1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration), cer t. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Ky.1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky.1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of 2000See also Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 366 S.W.2d 902 (1962) and Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 353 S.W.2d 381 (1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 829 , 82 S.Ct. 847 , 7 L.Ed.2d 795 (1962) (jurors properly permitted to separate by being allowed to make telephone calls to relatives concerning their personal needs during overnight sequestration); Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 1 (1953) (jurors properly permitted to stay in separate hotel rooms during overnight recess); Marcum v. Commonwealth, Ky., 256 S.W.2d 22 (1953) (absent a showing or claim of misconduct, temporary absence of two juro | 1 | 2 |
Dillon v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2022See Dillon, 475 S.W.3d at 19 (stating, as a result of a failure to object to an impeachment method, “Dillon therefore is not entitled to the benefit of harmless-error review, which requires only a showing that the error had a substantial effect on the verdict. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McCombsgreen1 sentence2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 1 |
McKinney v. Heiselgreen1 sentence2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 1 |
Sargent v. Shaffergreen1 sentence2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Millergreen1 sentence2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the | 1 | 1 |
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2017KRE 508 Because we are asked to review an evidentiary ruling, we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion.15 KRE 508 graJ?.tS the Commonwealth the privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, but \. . the privilege is not indefinite.16 If a defendant makes a prima fade case that the informant's identity "is. relevant ... to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair ~etermination of a cause," the.Cl's identity should be,_revealed. 17 ' When deciding whether to reveal the identity of a CI, the trial court follows a procedure set forth in H | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen1 sentence2014“Ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing that defense counsel’s performance was deficient and that the defendant was prejudiced by that deficiency.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 14 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Ky.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Schooley v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005See Schooley v. Commonwealth, 627 S.W.2d 576 (Ky.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harp v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2018However, this Court has, on occasion, determined such error does not require reversal if the “presumption [of prejudice] can be successfully rebutted upon a showing that the error was harmless.” Caudill, 540 S.W.3d at 367 (quoting Commonwealth v. McCombs, 304 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Ky. 2009) (citing Harp, 266 S.W.3d at 818 )); see also Weaver v. Brooks, 350 S.W.2d 639, 640 (Ky. 1961) (citing Miller v. Miller, 296 S.W.2d 684 (Ky. 1956)) (Stating that “technically incorrect instructions are not grounds for reversal where the rights of the losing party are not prejudiced.”). “[T]he party defending the 2010Id. | 3 | 2009–2018 |
Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp.
green
2 sentences2021Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (KY 2002). 2021Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (Ky. 2002). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Heard v. Commonwealth
neutral
2 sentences2017KRE 508 Because we are asked to review an evidentiary ruling, we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion.15 KRE 508 graJ?.tS the Commonwealth the privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, but \. . the privilege is not indefinite.16 If a defendant makes a prima fade case that the informant's identity "is. relevant ... to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair ~etermination of a cause," the.Cl's identity should be,_revealed. 17 ' When deciding whether to reveal the identity of a CI, the trial court follows a procedure set forth in H 2017KRE 508 Because we are asked to review an evidentiary ruling, we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion.15 KRE 508 graJ?.tS the Commonwealth the privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, but \. . the privilege is not indefinite.16 If a defendant makes a prima fade case that the informant's identity "is. relevant ... to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair ~etermination of a cause," the.Cl's identity should be,_revealed. 17 ' When deciding whether to reveal the identity of a CI, the trial court follows a procedure set forth in H | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Harper v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Toney-El v. Lane
green
2 sentences2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2000Harper v. Commonwealth, Ky., 978 S.W.2d 311, 315 , cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1178 , 106 S.Ct. 2906 , 90 L.Ed.2d 992 (1986), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McDowell v. Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1922(McDowell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co., 90 Ky. 346 .) Nor could it be revived by -a showing that the waiver was made under -a misapprehension of law or fact. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.