essence test in Kentucky

2025Mayhew v. Mayhew, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 72 (1959); Copley v. Craft, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 899 (1958).

1998Mayhew v. Mayhew, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 72 (1959); Copley v. Craft, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 899 (1958).

2025Mayhew v. Mayhew, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 72 (1959); Copley v. Craft, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 899 (1958).

1998Mayhew v. Mayhew, Ky., 329 S.W.2d 72 (1959); Copley v. Craft, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 899 (1958).

2019However, a close 5 examination of Osborne, supra, at 804 , indicates that the determination of a claimant’s post-injury earning capacity is based on normal employment conditions: . . . the essence of the test is the probable dependability with which the claimant can sell his services in a competitive labor market, undistorted by such factors as business boom, sympathy of a particular employer or friends, temporary good luck, or the superhuman efforts of the claimant to rise above his crippling handicaps.

1985However, a close examination of Osborne, supra, at 804 , indicates that the determination of a claimant’s post-injury earning capacity is based on normal employment conditions: ... the essence of the test is the probable dependability with which the claimant can sell his services in a competitive labor market, undistorted by such factors as business boom, sympathy of a particular employer or friends, temporary good luck, or the superhuman efforts of the claimant to rise above his crippling handicaps.

2021“The essence of a privilege is to prohibit disclosure, and thus also discovery.” Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Servs. v. Chauvin, 316 S.W.3d 279 , 287 (Ky. 2010).

1995Corp. v. Wheeler, Ky., 257 S.W.2d 573 (1953), whereas estoppel may arise when, by his conduct, one induces another relying on that conduct to believe in the existence of a particular state of fact and to act thereon to his prejudice.

1981Proof of legal causation is required in cases involving liability for products including drugs; again in this instance, legal causation may be established by a quantum of circumstantial evidence from which a jury may reasonably infer that the product was a legal cause of the harm.” The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to overcome a motion for a directed verdict was discussed in Holbrook, supra. Therein we said, “* * * the essence of the test concerning the sufficiency of plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence concerning causation is that the proof must be sufficient to tilt the balance from

1970In the last cited case and in Bartley v. Childers, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 130 (1968), the essence of the test concerning the sufficiency of plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence concerning causation is that the proof must be sufficient to tilt the balance from “possibility” to “probability.” An aspect of the problem has been recently considered in an article by Savage in 58 Ky.L.

1969This rule was first established in Drennan v. Roberts, 234 Ky. 574 , 28 S.W.2d 735 .

1969This rule was first established in Drennan v. Roberts, 234 Ky. 574 , 28 S.W.2d 735 .

1923In such case, that which purports to be evidence is insufficient to constitute a compliance with the requirements of the scintilla rule, for it is. the essence of that rule that there must be some evidence (however slight) upon which the jury might rationally find a verdict for the party producing-it.” In Louisville Water Co. v. Lally, 168 Ky. 348 , 182 S. W. 186 , the above rule was approved, and under same, the testimony of the .plaintiff that an nnnsnal force of water in the pipes turned the faucet on in the bathroom and flooded her house, was held to be of no probative value.

1923In such case, that which purports to be evidence is insufficient to constitute a compliance with the requirements of the scintilla rule, for it is. the essence of that rule that there must be some evidence (however slight) upon which the jury might rationally find a verdict for the party producing-it.” In Louisville Water Co. v. Lally, 168 Ky. 348 , 182 S. W. 186 , the above rule was approved, and under same, the testimony of the .plaintiff that an nnnsnal force of water in the pipes turned the faucet on in the bathroom and flooded her house, was held to be of no probative value.