abuse of discretion standard in Kentucky

2026Pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed unless “the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, -6- unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).

2025Mindful of those principles, we review the trial court’s decisions under an abuse of discretion standard, “whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” English, 993 S.W.2d at 945 .

2025Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we will not disturb a Trial Court’s decision unless it was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000).

2025Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we will not disturb a Trial Court’s decision unless it was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000).

2026As such, only the 2023 CR 60.02 Denial was timely appealed.5 On appeal, “[w]e review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion under an abuse of discretion standard.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Ky. 1996)).

2023“We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion under an abuse of discretion standard.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Ky. 1996)).

2026As such, only the 2023 CR 60.02 Denial was timely appealed.5 On appeal, “[w]e review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion under an abuse of discretion standard.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citing Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Ky. 1996)).

2026CR 60.02 provides in relevant part: “On motion a court may, upon such terms as are just, relieve a party or his legal representative from its final judgment, order, or proceeding upon the following grounds: . . . (c) perjury or falsified evidence . . . .” “We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion under an abuse of discretion standard.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted).

2026Fourth, Miller argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on reckless homicide. “[I]n deciding whether to give a requested instruction the trial court must decide ‘whether the evidence would permit a reasonable juror to make the finding the instruction authorizes.’ . . . [T]he trial judge’s superior view of evidence warrants a measure of deference from appellate courts that is reflected in the abuse of discretion standard.” 18 Sargent v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015) (quoting Springfield v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 589, 599 (Ky. 2013), overruled on o

2025Further, because a trial court’s decisions in the drafting of jury instructions are “necessarily based upon the evidence presented at the trial, the trial judge’s superior view of that evidence warrants a measure of deference from appellate courts that is reflected in the abuse of discretion standard.” Sutton v. Commonwealth, 627 10 S.W.3d 836 , 848-49 (Ky. 2021) (quoting Sargent v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Ky. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Univ.

2026Age v. Age, 340 S.W.3d 88, 94 (Ky. App. 2011); Baze v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 761 (Ky. 2008) (citing White v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Ky. App. 2000)); Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co., 692 S.W.2d 810 (Ky. App. 1985).

2026White v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Ky. App. 2000).

2024Similarly, “[a] trial judge’s ruling pursuant to CR 59.05 is reviewed by an appellate court under the abuse of discretion standard.” Bowling v. Kentucky Dep’t of Corr., 301 S.W.3d 478, 483 (Ky. 2009), as corrected (Jan. 4, 2010).

2024Furthermore, a trial court’s ruling pursuant to CR 59 “is reviewed by an appellate court under the abuse of discretion standard.” Bowling v. Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, 483 (Ky. 2009) (citations omitted).

2025And, appellate review of that decision is limited to an abuse-of-discretion inquiry, except for issues of law which are reviewed de novo.” Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky. 2004) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and footnotes omitted).

2016Generally, the standard for appellate review of the propriety of a writ is “limited to an abuse-of-discretion inquiry, except for issues of law which are reviewed de novo.” Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky.2004); Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2005). 2 As noted by this Court in Grange Mutual, - “De novo review will occur most often under the first class of writ cases, i.e., where the lower court is alleged to be acting outside its jurisdiction, because jurisdiction is generally only a question of law.” 151 S.W.3d at 810 .

2025Holland v. Holland, 290 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Ky. App. 2009).

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW “Our review of child support awards is governed by the abuse of discretion standard.” Holland v. Holland, 290 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Ky. App. 2009) (citation omitted).

2017Sowders v. Lewis, 241 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Ky. 2007).

2017Sowders v. Lewis, 241 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Ky. 2007).

2026Furthermore, “[a]s to what constitutes the best interest of the child, any factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; any decisions based upon said facts are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Young v. Holmes, 295 S.W.3d 144, 146 (Ky. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

2026“As to what constitutes the best interest of the child, any factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; any decisions based upon said facts are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Young v. Holmes, 295 S.W.3d 144, 146 (Ky. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

2021Lastly, the low level of light in the trailer resulted in a video that was subdued and lacking in detail.11 “A trial judge's decision with respect to the relevancy of evidence under KRE 401 and 403 is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Ky. 2001) (citations omitted).

2017"Relevant evidence· may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice." KRE 403. 8 "A trial judge's decision with respect to relevancy of evidence under KRE 401 and 403 is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Love v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 816, 822 (Ky. 2001).

2022And, third, since the ultimate “decision whether . . . to issue a writ of prohibition is a question of judicial discretion[, our] review of a court’s decision to issue a writ is conducted under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.

2018So review of a court's decision to issue a writ is conducted under the abuse-of-discretion standard." Id.

2026Pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless the “decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. -8- Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted).

2026Pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard, the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed unless “the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, -6- unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW “[I]ssues pertaining to the assignment of debts incurred during the marriage are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Neidlinger v. Neidlinger, 52 S.W.3d 513, 523 (Ky. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Smith v. McGill, 556 S.W.3d 552 (Ky. 2018).

2008In reviewing the determination by the trial court, the supreme court in Neidlinger held that “issues pertaining to the assignment of debts incurred during the marriage are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id.

2007Co. v. Trade, 151 S.W.3d 803, 810 (Ky.2004); Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky.2004): see also Kentucky Labor Cabinet v. Graham, 43 S.W.3d 247, 251 (Ky.2001) (“As the issues on this appeal are to be decided as a matter of law, our review of the Court of Appeals decision is not confined to an abuse of discretion inquiry.”).

2007Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky.2004); see also Kentucky Labor Cabinet v. Graham, 43 S.W.3d 247, 261 (Ky.2001) (“As the issues on this appeal are to be decided as a matter of law, our review of the Court of Appeals decision is not confined to an abuse of discretion inquiry.”).

2026Meyers v. Petrie, 233 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Ky. App. 2007).

2021See, e.g., Meyers v. Petrie, 233 S.W.3d 212 (Ky. App. 2007) (this Court reviewed a penalty of 181 days’ incarceration for contempt under the abuse of discretion standard). -5- Analysis We first note that Father did not file an appellee brief, nor was an appellee brief filed by the GAL on behalf of Child.

2025As for the review of CR 11 sanctions, “our role requires a multi-standard approach, that is, a clearly erroneous standard to the trial court’s findings in support of sanctions, a de novo review of the legal conclusion that a violation occurred, and an abuse of discretion standard on the type and/or amount of sanctions imposed.” Clark Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bowman, 762 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Ky. App. 1988) (footnote and citations omitted).

2021While not at issue on our appeal, we note that “CR 60.02 is not a separate avenue of appeal to be pursued in addition to other remedies. . . .” McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). -11- court’s findings in support of sanctions, a de novo review of the legal conclusion that a violation occurred, and an abuse of discretion standard on the type and/or amount of sanctions imposed.” Clark Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bowman, 762 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Ky. App. 1988) (footnote and citations omitted).

2026“We review a trial judge’s decision concerning discovery issues under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hilton v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 308 (Ky. 2013)).

2024Because this argument was preserved, we use the usual standard of review for evidentiary issues, which is abuse of discretion; see Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 309 (Ky. 2013) (citation omitted) (“A trial court’s determination as to whether a witness is qualified to give expert testimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.”).

2024Similarly, “[a]n award of [attorney’s] fees is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard.” Allison v. Allison, 246 S.W.3d 898, 909 (Ky. App. 2008) (citation omitted).

2022Pursuant to KRS 403.220, a trial court is authorized to award a “reasonable amount” for attorney fees in a divorce action after considering “the financial resources of both parties[.]” “An award of fees is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard.” Allison v. Allison, 246 S.W.3d 898, 909 (Ky. App. 2008) (citation omitted). -9- We disagree the trial court’s attorney fee award amounts to “double- dipping.” In effect, by requiring Antonio to pay Emma’s attorney fees already paid from marital funds, the trial court reimbursed Emma for her share of marital funds expended to main

2022That is, we will not reverse the lower court’s ruling absent a finding that the determination was 5 arbitrary, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2021That is, we will not reverse the lower court’s ruling absent a finding that the determination was arbitrary, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Appalachian Racing, LLC v. Commonwealth, 505 S.W.3d 1,3 (Ky. 2016) (Internal citations and quotations omitted).

2023This decision is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.”17 A trial court’s ruling is an abuse of discretion if the decision “was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”18 Minix asserted to the circuit court that his plea was involuntary because he did not know that he was required to complete the sex offender treatment program to become eligible for parole and, in addition, that he did not know he would be required to make admissions of guilt to complete the sex offender 14 Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288 (citing Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482, 486

2023This decision is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.”17 A trial court’s ruling is an abuse of discretion if the decision “was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”18 Minix asserted to the circuit court that his plea was involuntary because he did not know that he was required to complete the sex offender treatment program to become eligible for parole and, in addition, that he did not know he would be required to make admissions of guilt to complete the sex offender 14 Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288 (citing Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482, 486

2012The ruling as to the relevance of the [specialized] evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hyman & Armstrong, 279 S.W.3d at 101 -02 (citing Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909, 917 (Ky.2004)).

2006In Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d 909 (Ky.2004), this Court unanimously stated: [W]hen an appellate court subsequently reviews the trial court’s Daubert ruling, it must apply the abuse of discretion standard.

2025Unlike issues pertaining to characterization of property, “issues pertaining to the division of marital property upon divorce are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Overstreet v. Overstreet, 144 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Ky. App. 2003) (citation omitted).

2025Unlike issues pertaining to characterization of property, “issues pertaining to the division of marital property upon divorce are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Overstreet v. Overstreet, 144 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Ky. App. 2003) (citation omitted).

2026“We review a trial judge’s decision concerning discovery issues under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hilton v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 308 (Ky. 2013)).

2023“We review a trial judge’s decision concerning discovery issues under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hilton v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 308 (Ky. 2013)).

2025Porter v. Allen, 611 S.W.3d 290 , 294 (Ky. App. 2020) (citing Clephas v. Garlock, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 389, 393 (Ky. App. 2004)).

2025Clephas v. Garlock, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 389, 393 (Ky. App. 2004).

2016Generally, the standard for appellate review of the propriety of a writ is “limited to an abuse-of-discretion inquiry, except for issues of law which are reviewed de novo.” Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky.2004); Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2005). 2 As noted by this Court in Grange Mutual, - “De novo review will occur most often under the first class of writ cases, i.e., where the lower court is alleged to be acting outside its jurisdiction, because jurisdiction is generally only a question of law.” 151 S.W.3d at 810 .

2016Generally, the standard for appellate review of the propriety of a writ is "limited to an abuse-of-discretion inquiry, except for issues of law which are reviewed de novo." Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Ky. 2004); Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2005). 2 As noted by this Court in Grange Mutual, "De novo review will occur most often under the 2 Overruled on other grounds by Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, Inc. v. Wingate, 320 S.W.3d 692 (Ky. 2010). 4 first class of writ cases, i.e., where the lower court is alleged to be acting outsi

2026“A trial judge's ruling as to the admissibility of evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” King v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Ky. 2004).

2025“A trial judge's ruling as to the admissibility of evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” King v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Ky. 2004).

2024Clark v. Commonwealth, 223 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Ky. 2007).

2010The trial court’s decision regarding KRE 404(b) matters is reviewed by this Court under an abuse of discretion standard, ie., was it “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Id. at 95 .