12 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Suter v. Mazyckgreen2 sentences2024See Rose v. Ackerson, 374 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Ky. App. 2012) (“The unclean hands doctrine is a rule of equity that forecloses relief to a party who has engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct.”) (quoting Suter v. Mazyck, 226 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Ky. App. 2007)). 2013“The unclean hands doctrine is a rule of equity that forecloses relief to a party who has engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct but does not operate so as to ‘repel all sinners from courts of equity.’ ” Suter v. Mazyck, 226 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Ky.App.2007) (quoting Dunscombe v. Amfot Oil Co., 201 Ky. 290 , 256 S.W. 427, 429 (1923)). | 6 | 6 |
Dunscombe v. Amfot Oil Co.green2 sentences2024The brief also fails to comply with the following rules: RAP 31(A)(1)(e); RAP 32(E)(1)(a), RAP; 32(E)(1)(d). -10- Applying unclean hands doctrine resolves Kaisi’s claim in Isaacs’s favor As now Justice Thompson said in an opinion he authored as a Judge of this Court of Appeals: The unclean hands doctrine is a rule of equity that forecloses relief to a party who has engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct but does not operate so as to “repel all sinners from courts of equity.” Dunscombe v. Amfot Oil Co., 201 Ky. 290 , 256 S.W. 427, 429 (1923). 2024The brief also fails to comply with the following rules: RAP 31(A)(1)(e); RAP 32(E)(1)(a), RAP; 32(E)(1)(d). -10- Applying unclean hands doctrine resolves Kaisi’s claim in Isaacs’s favor As now Justice Thompson said in an opinion he authored as a Judge of this Court of Appeals: The unclean hands doctrine is a rule of equity that forecloses relief to a party who has engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct but does not operate so as to “repel all sinners from courts of equity.” Dunscombe v. Amfot Oil Co., 201 Ky. 290 , 256 S.W. 427, 429 (1923). | 4 | 4 |
Eline Realty Co. v. Foemangreen2 sentences2024“The transaction with respect to which there was misconduct must be connected with the matter in litigation in order for the doctrine of unclean hands to apply.” Eline Realty Co. v. Foeman, 252 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky. 1952). 2022“The transaction with respect to which there was misconduct must be connected with the matter in litigation in order for the doctrine of unclean hands to apply.” Eline Realty Co. v. Foeman, 252 S.W.2d 15, 19 (Ky. 1952). | 3 | 3 |
Mullins v. Picklesimergreen2 sentences2025See also, e.g., Mullins v. Picklesimer, 317 S.W.3d 569, 577 (Ky. 2010) (“Under the unclean hands doctrine, a party is precluded from judicial relief if that party engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct in connection with the matter in litigation. 2025See also, e.g., Mullins v. Picklesimer, 317 S.W.3d 569, 577 (Ky. 2010) (“Under the unclean hands doctrine, a party is precluded from judicial relief if that party engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct in connection with the matter in litigation. | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services, Department for Community Based Servicesgreen1 sentence2024Wright v. Miller, 629 S.W.3d 813 , 820 (Ky. App. 2021) (quoting Bell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Dep’t for Community Based Services, 423 S.W.3d 742, 747-48 (Ky. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.green2 sentences2024It is not bound by formula or restrained by any limitation that tends to trammel the free and just exercise of discretion.” Id. at 815 , 65 S. Ct. at 997 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024It is not bound by formula or restrained by any limitation that tends to trammel the free and just exercise of discretion.” Id. at 815 , 65 S. Ct. at 997 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Ackersongreen1 sentence2024See Rose v. Ackerson, 374 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Ky. App. 2012) (“The unclean hands doctrine is a rule of equity that forecloses relief to a party who has engaged in fraudulent, illegal, or unconscionable conduct.”) (quoting Suter v. Mazyck, 226 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Ky. App. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Vestgreen1 sentence2021KRS 382.990(8) provides that: “[a]ny person who willfully and fraudulently gives a false statement as to the full actual consideration of property or the full estimated value under KRS 382.135, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.” -15- The trial court refused to apply the doctrine of unclean hands to bar the Estate from rescinding the deed, reasoning that John substantially complied with KRS 382.135 by listing the fair market value of the property as $150,000.00, an amount that was not disputed by the parties, and stating that the property was being exchanged for “$1.00 and other consideratio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peeler v. Hughes & Luce
green
1 sentence2024In doing so, this Court relied on Ray, supra, and did not discuss the unclean hands doctrine. 5 Ray includes a citation to Peeler v. Hughes, 868 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993), aff’d, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995). -6- The first case is Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker, 859 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker
green
1 sentence2024In doing so, this Court relied on Ray, supra, and did not discuss the unclean hands doctrine. 5 Ray includes a citation to Peeler v. Hughes, 868 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993), aff’d, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995). -6- The first case is Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker, 859 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Peeler v. Hughes & Luce
green
1 sentence2024In doing so, this Court relied on Ray, supra, and did not discuss the unclean hands doctrine. 5 Ray includes a citation to Peeler v. Hughes, 868 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993), aff’d, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995). -6- The first case is Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker, 859 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Snyder v. Snyder
green
1 sentence2021We consider each argument below. -12- A. Statute of Frauds The Currins argue that the trial court erred in allowing the Estate’s claim to come before a jury because KRS 371.010 provides that “[n]o action shall be brought to charge a person . . . (7) [u]pon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof . . . unless the promise, contract, agreement, representation, assurance, or ratification, or some memorandum or note thereof, be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his authorized agent.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States
green
1 sentence1952Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 461 ; Rudd v. Kittinger, 309 Ky. 315 , 217 S.W.2d 651 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Preston v. Trmble
neutral
1 sentence1952Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 461 ; Rudd v. Kittinger, 309 Ky. 315 , 217 S.W.2d 651 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Rudd v. Kittinger
neutral
1 sentence1952Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation v. United States, 6 Cir., 151 F.2d 461 ; Rudd v. Kittinger, 309 Ky. 315 , 217 S.W.2d 651 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.