10 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Roland v. Kentucky Retirement Systemsgreen1 sentence2024Pensions serve as an inducement to competent persons to enter and remain in public service.” Roland v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 52 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Ky. App. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Lareau v. O'Nangreen1 sentence2024In Lareau v. O’Nan, 355 S.W.2d 679, 681 (Ky. 1962), the Court in Laueau held that “[t]here is no basic public policy against such covenants, particularly when they involve professional services. | 1 | 1 |
Sexton v. Sextongreen1 sentence2023At the outset of our analysis, we note the pertinent reasoning of Sexton v. Sexton, 125 S.W.3d 258, 264-66 (Ky. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Environmental Construction Corp.green2 sentences2010As noted at the outset of our analysis, we will uphold an order granting JNOV “if after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person].” Moore v. Environmental Construction Corporation, 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2010As noted at the outset of our analysis, we will uphold an order granting JNOV "if after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person]." Moore v. Environmental Construction Corporation, 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lynn Mining Co. v. Kellygreen1 sentence2009Co. v. Kelly, 394 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Ky.1965) (citing Carr v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 344 S.W.2d 619 (Ky.1961)); accord Hall v. Musgrave, 517 F.2d 1163 (6th Cir.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Sharlene Hall and Ray Hall v. Dr. Ernest E. Musgrave and Dr. Charles F. Sowardsgreen1 sentence2009Co. v. Kelly, 394 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Ky.1965) (citing Carr v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 344 S.W.2d 619 (Ky.1961)); accord Hall v. Musgrave, 517 F.2d 1163 (6th Cir.1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Knights
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 116 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2014At the outset of our analysis, we must address the applicability of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 2014At the outset of our analysis, we must address the applicability of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Copass v. Monroe County Medical Foundation, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011At the outset of its analysis, this Court noted that “venue is purely a legislative matter, and the judiciary may not rewrite the statutes.” Id. at 619 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carr v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation
green
1 sentence2009Co. v. Kelly, 394 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Ky.1965) (citing Carr v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 344 S.W.2d 619 (Ky.1961)); accord Hall v. Musgrave, 517 F.2d 1163 (6th Cir.1975). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mullins v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005At the outset of our analysis, we noted “that every person owes a duty to every other person to exercise ordinary care in his activities to prevent foreseeable injury.” Id. at 332 . 2005At the outset of our analysis, we noted "that every person owes a duty to every other person to exercise ordinary care in his activities to prevent foreseeable injury." Id. at 332 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Zink v. Commonwealth, Department of Workers' Claims, Labor Cabinet
green
1 sentence2001Concluding that the forms contained personal information, this court proceeded to weigh “the public interest in disclosure against the privacy interests involved,” noting at the outset that its analysis turned only on “the extent to which disclosure would serve the principle (sic) purpose of the Open Records Act,” and not “on the purposes for which the request for information is made or the identity of the person making the request.” Id. at 828 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.