finality rule in Kentucky

2023Square D filed an interlocutory appeal based on its workers’ compensation argument and pursuant to Ervin Cable Construction, LLC v. Lay, 461 S.W.3d 422, 423 (Ky. App. 2015) (holding “the denial of a substantial claim of immunity is an exception to the finality rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable”).

2021Relying on Prater, but 3KRS 503.085 states, in relevant part, “A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . .” 6 without mentioning Farmer, the Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment because “the denial of a substantial claim of immunity is an exception to the finality rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.” Id. at 423 (citing Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 ).

2008In Jones, our predecessor Court of Appeals was "inclined to the view that if a forgery constitutes a fraud upon the court, the judgment might be adjudged void without regard to statutory limitations based upon `irregularity'." Jones, 255 S.W.2d at 659 (emphasis added).

2008In Jones, our predecessor Court of Appeals was “inclined to the view that if a forgery constitutes a fraud upon the court, the judgment might be adjudged void without regard to statutory limitations based upon ‘irregularity’.” Jones, 255 S.W.2d at 659 (emphasis added).

2021Relying on Prater, but 3KRS 503.085 states, in relevant part, “A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . .” 6 without mentioning Farmer, the Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment because “the denial of a substantial claim of immunity is an exception to the finality rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.” Id. at 423 (citing Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 ).

2021When the case was first before the Court, we exercised appellate jurisdiction in reliance on Breathitt County Board of Education v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 (Ky. 2009), as interpreted in Ervin Cable Construction, LLC v. Lay, 461 S.W.3d 422, 423 (Ky. App. 2015), overruled by Sheets, supra. Sheets noted that since Prater, the Supreme Court has refined interlocutory jurisdiction based on the collateral order doctrine exception to the finality rule.

1989See Burkett v. Board of Ed. of Pulaski County, Ky.App., 558 S.W.2d 626 (1977); City of Louisville v. River Excursion Co., 253 Ky. 95 , 68 S.W.2d 792 (1934); and a host of cases cited in Vol. 2, Kentucky Digest, Appeal and Error, §§ 1096-1099.

1989See Burkett v. Board of Ed. of Pulaski County, Ky.App., 558 S.W.2d 626 (1977); City of Louisville v. River Excursion Co., 253 Ky. 95 , 68 S.W.2d 792 (1934); and a host of cases cited in Vol. 2, Kentucky Digest, Appeal and Error, §§ 1096-1099.

1988See Ashland Public Library Board of Trustees v. Scott, Ky., 610 S.W.2d 895 (1981); Ratliff v. Fiscal Court of Caldwell County, Ky., 617 S.W.2d 36 (1981); Security Federal Savings & Loan Association of Mayfield v. Nesler, Ky., 697 S.W.2d 136 (1985).