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.
12 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
U.S. Bank, NA v. Hastygreen2 sentences2024She cannot blame either Mustard Seed or the circuit court for her own failures, and she cannot rely on CR 60.02 to raise arguments that could have been raised earlier -14- in the proceedings. (“[O]ne of the chief factors guiding the granting of CR 60.02 relief is the moving party’s ability to present his claim prior to the entry of the order sought to be set aside.” U.S. Bank, NA v. Hasty, 232 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Ky. App. 2007)). 2024She cannot blame either Mustard Seed or the circuit court for her own failures, and she cannot rely on CR 60.02 to raise arguments that could have been raised earlier -14- in the proceedings. (“[O]ne of the chief factors guiding the granting of CR 60.02 relief is the moving party’s ability to present his claim prior to the entry of the order sought to be set aside.” U.S. Bank, NA v. Hasty, 232 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Ky. App. 2007)). | 6 | 6 |
Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2026Similarly, in Fry v. Kersey, this Court noted that “one of the chief factors” in determining whether to grant relief from a divorce decree “pursuant to CR 60.02” is whether the party had a prior ability to present the claim. 833 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Ky. App. 1992) (quoting Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 692 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Ky. App. 1985)). 1992In Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., Ky.App., 692 S.W.2d 810, 814 (1985), we said: [T]he determination to grant relief from a judgment or order pursuant to CR 60.02 is one that is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court with one of the chief factors guiding it being the moving party’s ability to present his claim prior to the entry of the order sought to be set aside. | 2 | 2 |
Hoffman v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2024“It is true that CR 60.02 cannot be used to correct judicial fact- finding errors or legal conclusions.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 500 S.W.3d 234, 237 (Ky. App. 2016). 2024“It is true that CR 60.02 cannot be used to correct judicial fact- finding errors or legal conclusions.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 500 S.W.3d 234, 237 (Ky. App. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Fortney v. Mahangreen2 sentences2007Fortney v. Mahan, 302 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Ky.1957). 1985Fortney v. Mahan, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 842 (1957). | 1 | 2 |
Fry v. Kerseygreen1 sentence2026Similarly, in Fry v. Kersey, this Court noted that “one of the chief factors” in determining whether to grant relief from a divorce decree “pursuant to CR 60.02” is whether the party had a prior ability to present the claim. 833 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Ky. App. 1992) (quoting Schott v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 692 S.W.2d 810, 814 (Ky. App. 1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilder v. Wildergreen1 sentence2023Wilder v. Wilder, 294 S.W.3d 449, 451 (Ky. App. 2009) (quoting U.S. Bank, NA v. Hasty, 232 S.W.3d 536, 541-42 (Ky. App. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clore v. Lambert
neutral
1 sentence2018Intention is "inferred from the nature of the article affixed, the relation and situation of the party making the annexation ... the structure and mode of the annexation, and the purpose or use for which the annexation has been made." Clore v. Lambert , 78 Ky. 224 , 227 (1879). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Doll v. Guthrie
green
2 sentences2018The third test, intention of the parties, "is held to be the chief test." Id. "[T]he intention to make an article a permanent accession to the realty must affirmatively and plainly appear, and if the matter is left in doubt and uncertainty the legal qualities of the article are not changed, and it must be deemed a chattel." Id. 2018The third test, intention of the parties, "is held to be the chief test." Id. "[T]he intention to make an article a permanent accession to the realty must affirmatively and plainly appear, and if the matter is left in doubt and uncertainty the legal qualities of the article are not changed, and it must be deemed a chattel." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Simonson v. Knight
green
1 sentence1955Usually accidents which occur to an employee going to and from his work are not compensable, the chief exception being accidents which occur to the employee on the employer's premises before and after the actual work of the day. 49 A.L.R. 426 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.