9 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1915–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Baileygreen2 sentences2026Supervised individuals have “a constitutional right to a hearing pursuant to procedures that enabled him to make his case to the Board, who would then have full awareness of all the evidence presented and would be able to decide whether there were any mitigating factors in his favor.” Id. at 144 . 2023See Jones v. Bailey, 576 S.W.3d 128, 137 (Ky. 2019) (citing Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Ky. 2010)) (noting that parole and post-incarceration supervision revocation procedures are “akin”). -6- all the evidence presented and would be able to decide whether there were any mitigating factors in his favor.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2026Id. at 144. 2023The Court concluded that defendant “had a constitutional right to a hearing pursuant to procedures that enabled him to make his case to the Board, who would then have full awareness of all the evidence presented and would be able to decide whether there were any mitigating factors in his favor.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023See Jones v. Bailey, 576 S.W.3d 128, 137 (Ky. 2019) (citing Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Ky. 2010)) (noting that parole and post-incarceration supervision revocation procedures are “akin”). -6- all the evidence presented and would be able to decide whether there were any mitigating factors in his favor.” Id. (emphasis added). 2023See Jones v. Bailey, 576 S.W.3d 128, 137 (Ky. 2019) (citing Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Ky. 2010)) (noting that parole and post-incarceration supervision revocation procedures are “akin”). -6- all the evidence presented and would be able to decide whether there were any mitigating factors in his favor.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Bill Hugo Williams v. Donald E. Bordenkircher, Supt., Kentucky State Penitentiarygreen1 sentence2010This is no more than applying the standard of review set forth in Thompson , and is consistent with federal law, see Filiaggi, 445 F.3d at 858 ; Williams v. Bordenkircher, 696 F.2d 464, 467 (6th Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Herbert E. Rose v. E. B. Haskins, Superintendentgreen1 sentence1968Habeas corpus lies where persons are held in custody illegally.” “ ‘The prisoner who has been paroled and has subsequently been rearrested under a warrant by the board is not illegally detained in custody.’ ” See also Rose v. Haskins, 388 F.2d 91, 95 (6 Cir. 1968), wherein the court said that: “A state prisoner does not have a constitutional right to a hearing on a state parole revocation.” “Even in the federal parole system, where Congress has provided for a hearing in parole revocation proceedings, the hearing is limited and does not approach a judicial proceeding.” We hold that a hearing be | 1 | 1 |
Tipton v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence1965See Tipton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 290 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2012It does not appear that Appellant was in custody when he spoke to police, so as to implicate the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), line of cases. 2012It does not appear that Appellant was in custody when he spoke to police, so as to implicate the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), line of cases. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Padgett v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2012Padgett v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 336 (Ky.2010), holds that the statutory right to a competency hearing may be waived, but if there is substantial evidence that a defendant is incompetent, and thus the constitutional right to a hearing attaches, the trial court must conduct a competency hearing, at trial or retrospectively, even if both counsel and the defendant expressly waive it. . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
James J. Filiaggi v. Margaret Bagley, Warden
green
1 sentence2010This is no more than applying the standard of review set forth in Thompson , and is consistent with federal law, see Filiaggi, 445 F.3d at 858 ; Williams v. Bordenkircher, 696 F.2d 464, 467 (6th Cir.1983). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
green
2 sentences1975Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). “ . . .a state-employed teacher who has a right to re-employment under a state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, has in turn, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). 1975Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). “ . . .a state-employed teacher who has a right to re-employment under a state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, has in turn, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Perry v. Sindermann
green
2 sentences1975Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). “ . . .a state-employed teacher who has a right to re-employment under a state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, has in turn, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). 1975Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). “ . . .a state-employed teacher who has a right to re-employment under a state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, has in turn, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Hager v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1915The exclusion of other party members from participating in such elections is not an infringement or denial of a constitutional right or privilege.” The principle announced in Ladd v. Holmes is supported by numerous other cases reviewed in Hager v. Robinson, supra, and in therein giving it our approval we said: “All that is said by the authorities, supra, as to tests of party loyalty and party membership, applies 'with equal force to electors voting and candidates voted for in primary elections; and whether applied by legislative enactment to the one class or the other, or both, they are equall | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.