event violation in Kentucky

2025The Court explained that while “[the defendant’s] possession of a firearm before the need to defendant his life may have been an event in violation of the law . . . , his possession of a firearm was justified at the moment it became necessary for his self-defense.” Id.

2024Because these alleged errors involve a constitutional right, the test to be 25 applied in the event we hold error occurred is “whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Talbot, 968 S.W.2d at 84 .

2020Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

2020Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

1994Masters, supra at 86 , goes on to state that: “[W]here evidence is admissible to provide this ‘full presentation’ of the offense ‘[t]here is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry’ by suppressing parts of the ‘res ges-tae’.” As further pointed out by Lawson, the case law from which the language utilized in KRE 404(b)(2) is extracted suggests “that the rule is intended to be flexible enough to permit the prosecution to present a complete, unfragmented, unartiflcial picture of the crime committed by the defendant, including necessary context, background and perspective.” See also, Stan

1994Masters, supra at 86 , goes on to state that: “[W]here evidence is admissible to provide this ‘full presentation’ of the offense ‘[t]here is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry’ by suppressing parts of the ‘res ges-tae’.” As further pointed out by Lawson, the case law from which the language utilized in KRE 404(b)(2) is extracted suggests “that the rule is intended to be flexible enough to permit the prosecution to present a complete, unfragmented, unartiflcial picture of the crime committed by the defendant, including necessary context, background and perspective.” See also, Stan

1994Masters, supra at 86 , goes on to state that: “[W]here evidence is admissible to provide this ‘full presentation’ of the offense ‘[t]here is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry’ by suppressing parts of the ‘res ges-tae’.” As further pointed out by Lawson, the case law from which the language utilized in KRE 404(b)(2) is extracted suggests “that the rule is intended to be flexible enough to permit the prosecution to present a complete, unfragmented, unartiflcial picture of the crime committed by the defendant, including necessary context, background and perspective.” See also, Stan

1994Id. at 906 .

1984As noted in Young v. Daniels, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 295 (1972), the reports serve as a means for early settlement and handling of uncontested claims and to provide a default judgment procedure in uncontested claims.

1984As noted in Young v. Daniels, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 295 (1972), the reports serve as a means for early settlement and handling of uncontested claims and to provide a default judgment procedure in uncontested claims.

1942The court sustained a demurrer to the petition as amended on the authority of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S. W. (2d) 915, 917 , the plaintiff declined to plead further, and the petition as amended was dismissed.

1942The court sustained a demurrer to the petition as amended on the authority of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S. W. (2d) 915, 917 , the plaintiff declined to plead further, and the petition as amended was dismissed.

1938However, if it be conceded that that clause of the will should be construed to mean that in the event of a violation of its provisions in respect of pledging, anticipating or otherwise encumbering the trust fund by any one or more of the beneficiaries, would work a forfeiture of the share of any one or ones so violating it, and such share or shares then and there vest in other named beneficiaries, so as to bring the case within the category of the cases of Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56 , 18 S. W. (2d) 859 ; Scott v. Ratliff, 179 Ky. 267, 269 , 200 S. W. 461 , L.

1938However, if it be conceded that that clause of the will should be construed to mean that in the event of a violation of its provisions in respect of pledging, anticipating or otherwise encumbering the trust fund by any one or more of the beneficiaries, would work a forfeiture of the share of any one or ones so violating it, and such share or shares then and there vest in other named beneficiaries, so as to bring the case within the category of the cases of Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56 , 18 S. W. (2d) 859 ; Scott v. Ratliff, 179 Ky. 267, 269 , 200 S. W. 461 , L.

1938However, if it be conceded that that clause of the will should be construed to mean that in the event of a violation of its provisions in respect of pledging, anticipating or otherwise encumbering the trust fund by any one or more of the beneficiaries, would work a forfeiture of the share of any one or ones so violating it, and such share or shares then and there vest in other named beneficiaries, so as to bring the case within the category of the cases of Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56 , 18 S. W. (2d) 859 ; Scott v. Ratliff, 179 Ky. 267, 269 , 200 S. W. 461 , L.

1938However, if it be conceded that that clause of the will should be construed to mean that in the event of a violation of its provisions in respect of pledging, anticipating or otherwise encumbering the trust fund by any one or more of the beneficiaries, would work a forfeiture of the share of any one or ones so violating it, and such share or shares then and there vest in other named beneficiaries, so as to bring the case within the category of the cases of Ford v. Ford, 230 Ky. 56 , 18 S. W. (2d) 859 ; Scott v. Ratliff, 179 Ky. 267, 269 , 200 S. W. 461 , L.

1933In Ward v. Daugherty, 228 Ky. 326 , 14 S. W. (2d) 1089, 1090 , in addition to the usual terms it was provided that in the event a test well then being drilled on an adjoining farm should prove to be dry, the lessee should drill two test wells on the leased premises within a specified time.

1933In Ward v. Daugherty, 228 Ky. 326 , 14 S. W. (2d) 1089, 1090 , in addition to the usual terms it was provided that in the event a test well then being drilled on an adjoining farm should prove to be dry, the lessee should drill two test wells on the leased premises within a specified time.