modification rule in Kentucky

2026See generally Rice v. Rice, 372 S.W.3d 449 (Ky. App. 2023); Hibdon v. Hibdon, 247 S.W.3d 915 (Ky. App. 2007); W.R.G. v. K.C., 673 S.W.3d 81 (Ky. App. 2023).

2010The basis of the motion was that Chad had failed to comply with the procedure described in Fenwick, which states that: [Wjhen a primary residential custodian gives notice of his or her intent to relocate with the parties’ child, the burden is then upon any party objecting to file a custody modification motion within a reasonable time and after that, to satisfy the modification standard of KRS 403.340 in order to change the designation of primary residential custodian. *15 Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d at 786 .

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

2002In our view, however, the Hanson rule has been superceded by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper Industries v. Leatherman, supra , [43] See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.App.1982) ($4 million in punitive damages on facts similar to these was affirmed); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal. 3d 388 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 (1982)($4 million in punitive damages upheld); Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ct.App.Ind.1999) (punitive damage judgment of $13.8 million affirmed on appeal). [44] Ky., 976 S.W.2d 409 (1998). [45] Id. at 410, 413-15 . [46]

1949Co. v. Steele, 179 Ky. 605 , 201 S. W. 43 , L.

1949Co. v. Steele, 179 Ky. 605 , 201 S. W. 43 , L.

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1941We need not go at length into a discussion of the modification of the rule relating to the duty of the driver of a trailing car, as- laid down in Owen Motor Freight Lines v. Russell’s Adm’r, 260 Ky. 795 , 86 S. W. (2d) 708 , or whether the rule therein has been since abandoned by later opinions, Vinson v. Kissinger’s Adm’r, 274 Ky. 606 , 119 S. W. (2d) 628 ; Fahrenholtz v. Loomis, 280 Ky. 9 , 132 S. W. (2d) 307, 308 , since the facts here differ from those in the cases cited, but came nearer to the facts shown in Whitney v. Penick, 281 Ky. 474 , 136 S. W. (2d) 570 , and Wright v. Clausen, 263

1927Co. v. Cox, 154 Ky. 100 , in support of its contention that the language of the court in the former opinion was a mere suggestion as to the modification of this instruction, and is not such as to require the giving of same on the second trial.

1923The case of L. & N. Railroad Company v. Dyer, 152 Ky. 264 , was where a married woman with a baby in her arms, but accompanied by her husband and brother-in-law, sued for damages for injuries received by her in attempting to enter a train.

1917Turner v. Hamlin, 152 Ky. 469 ; District of Clifton v. Pfirman, 110 S. W. 406 ; Turner v. City of Middlesboro, 117 S. W. 422 .

1912Its phraseology is that directed to be given in White v. Commonwealth, 31 Ky. Law Rep., 271 , s. c. 125 Ky., 699 , cited by appellant.