10 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017Furthermore, trial 24 cullen v. mhalsrer, 563 U. s. 170, 196 (201 1) (quosng Pinholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 `, 692 (9111 cir. 20_09). 25 Sayior v. Comnwnwealth, 357 S. W. 3d 567, 571 (Ky. App. 2012). ‘ ' ' 1 1 counsel testified that as proof unfolded at`tiial, he believed St. 2017Furtherrnore, trial 24 Cullen v. R'nholster, 563 U. S. 170 , 196 (20l1) [quoting P£nholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 `, 692 '(9¢1_1 cir. 20_09]._ 25 Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S. W. 3d 567, 571 (Ky. App. 2012}. " ` l l counsel testified that as proof unfolded a`t`trial, he believed St. | 2 | 2 |
cluster 602789green2 sentences2010Rev. 331, 335 (2000) ("The ability to form a federal credit union hinges on the existence of a `common bond' that is shared by a group of people .") ; First Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 988 F.2d at 1276 (noting the common bond requirement for state credit unions preceded the existence of federal credit unions) . 2010L.Rev. 331, 335 (2000) (“The ability to form a federal credit union hinges on the existence of a ‘common bond’ that is shared by a group of people.”); First Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 988 F.2d at 1276 (noting the common bond requirement for state credit unions preceded the existence of federal credit unions). | 2 | 2 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,908 Alexander MacDonald (95-6028/6286) v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant (95-6030/6287)green1 sentence2026Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261 (1880); MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337, 339-341 (6th Cir. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Fickey v. Cross Creek Apartments, Ltd.green1 sentence2024See Meinshausen v. Friendship House of Louisville, Inc., 607 S.W.3d 199 , 202 (Ky. App. 2020) (citing Fickey v. Cross Creek Apartments, Ltd., 700 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Ky. App. 1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Knuckles v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). 2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Skaggs v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Maxie v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Gosser v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Neal v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2005Appellant did not testify at trial and thus the jury did not hear evidence of the alleged consensual affair. [3] Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b). [4] KRE 404(b). [5] KRE 404(b)(1). [6] KRE 404(b)(2). [7] Price v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky.2001); Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 667, 671 (Ky.1953). [8] Alexander v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 856, 859 (Ky.1993). [9] Maxie v. Commonwealth, 82 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Ky.2002). [10] Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Ky.1985). [11] Gosser v. Commonwealth, 31 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Ky.2000). [12] Neal v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Ky.2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pinholster v. Ayers
green
2 sentences2017Furthermore, trial 24 cullen v. mhalsrer, 563 U. s. 170, 196 (201 1) (quosng Pinholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 `, 692 (9111 cir. 20_09). 25 Sayior v. Comnwnwealth, 357 S. W. 3d 567, 571 (Ky. App. 2012). ‘ ' ' 1 1 counsel testified that as proof unfolded at`tiial, he believed St. 2017Furtherrnore, trial 24 Cullen v. R'nholster, 563 U. S. 170 , 196 (20l1) [quoting P£nholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 `, 692 '(9¢1_1 cir. 20_09]._ 25 Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S. W. 3d 567, 571 (Ky. App. 2012}. " ` l l counsel testified that as proof unfolded a`t`trial, he believed St. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Oscanyan v. Arms Co.
green
1 sentence2026Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261 (1880); MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337, 339-341 (6th Cir. 1997). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Zuckerman v. Bevin
green
1 sentence2022Finally, the statute does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States or the Kentucky Constitution. “[T]he level of judicial scrutiny applied to an equal protection challenge depends on the classification made in the statute and the interest affected by it.” Zuckerman v. Bevin, 565 S.W.3d 580 , 595 -8- (Ky. 2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cullen v. Pinholster
green
1 sentence2017Furtherrnore, trial 24 Cullen v. R'nholster, 563 U. S. 170 , 196 (20l1) [quoting P£nholster v. Ayers, 590 F. 3d 651 `, 692 '(9¢1_1 cir. 20_09]._ 25 Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S. W. 3d 567, 571 (Ky. App. 2012}. " ` l l counsel testified that as proof unfolded a`t`trial, he believed St. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2010“During the Great Depression, in contrast to widespread bank failures at both the state and national level, there were no involuntary liquidations of state-chartered credit unions.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Roby
green
1 sentence1918In defense it was insisted that the city could ■ not recover because the principal. could not be made guilty for the act of his clerk, which the principal alleged was done in violation of his instructions, although the Commonwealth offered to prove by the clerk that he ■regularly opened the establishment on Sunday and sold liquor on that day, and that on that very same day the owner had instructed him'to “open up.” The divergent views of the different courts in regard to criminal responsibility of the principal in such cases, are referred to and discussed in the opinion, but the court adopted | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Williams v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1878It is said, however, that this decision has been questioned by this court in the case of Williams v. Smith ( 4 Bush, 540 .) In Watson v. Gabby this court decided that the claimant, on a motion for judgment on his bond, could not set up his equitable interest in the property levied on and released by the execution of the claimant’s bond as a defense to the motion of the obligee in the claimant’s bond, and this ruling was substantially overturned in Williams v. Smith. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.