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.
10 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benet v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025Id. 2021Benet v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 528, 532-33 (Ky. 2008).3 3 Although Katelyn’s failure to comply with the notification requirement in KRS 418.075 means the issue is not preserved for our review, we note that our Supreme Court has explained that: Unlike a parent’s right to the care and custody in their children, the question of who shall inherit what is firmly a legislative one. | 2 | 4 |
Maney v. Mary Chiles Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. City of Louisville, Ky., 559 S.W.2d 478 (1977). [1] KRS 418.075 (emphasis added). [2] 1996 Ky. Acts, ch. 202, § 2 (effective July 15, 1996). [3] Ky., 785 S.W.2d 480 (1990). [4] See, Id. at 481: [W]e are convinced that there is a compelling public purpose to be served by the notification rule. 2000See, Id. at 481: [W]e are convinced that there is a compelling public purpose to be served by the notification rule. | 1 | 2 |
Austin Powder Co. v. Stacygreen1 sentence2023See Austin Powder Co. v. Stacy, 495 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Ky. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Homestead Nursing Home v. Parkergreen1 sentence2016Our Supreme Court has held that the notification requirement is mandatory and should be strictly enforced.” Id. at 425, n. 1 . | 1 | 1 |
Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trudegreen1 sentence2013Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky.1994) (overruled on other grounds by Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Brashars v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2013Brashars v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 58, 65 (Ky.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Woodmark Corp. v. Mullins
green
1 sentence2018The ALJ noted that the scheduling order had been mailed to the same address as the notification, and that “evidence that the scheduling order was not entered into the carrier’s electronic database and, therefore, not forwarded to defense counsel in a timely manner, was insufficient to demonstrate good cause.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes
green
1 sentence2013Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt Health Care Corp. v. Trude, 880 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky.1994) (overruled on other grounds by Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464 (Ky.1998)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. City of Louisville
green
1 sentence2000Fiscal Court of Jefferson County v. City of Louisville, Ky., 559 S.W.2d 478 (1977). [1] KRS 418.075 (emphasis added). [2] 1996 Ky. Acts, ch. 202, § 2 (effective July 15, 1996). [3] Ky., 785 S.W.2d 480 (1990). [4] See, Id. at 481: [W]e are convinced that there is a compelling public purpose to be served by the notification rule. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.