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 3 courts 1902–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ferguson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2016If this were a case about an evidentiary error or other trial error, a reversal would not bar reprosecution on double-jeopardy grounds because lilt is elementary that one may not complain of former jeopardy when he procured the setting aside of the earlier judgment." Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 401 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1965); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1.988). 2016If this were a case about an evidentiary error or other trial error, a reversal would not bar reprosecution on double-jeopardy grounds because “[i]t is elementary, that one may not complain of former jeopardy when he procured the setting aside of the earlier judgment.” Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 401 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky.1965); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Lockhart v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2016If this were a case about an evidentiary error or other trial error, a reversal would not bar reprosecution on double-jeopardy grounds because “[i]t is elementary, that one may not complain of former jeopardy when he procured the setting aside of the earlier judgment.” Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 401 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky.1965); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). 2016If this were a case about an evidentiary error or other trial error, a reversal would not bar reprosecution on double-jeopardy grounds because “[i]t is elementary, that one may not complain of former jeopardy when he procured the setting aside of the earlier judgment.” Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 401 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky.1965); see also Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Deaton v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2001However, "not only error but injury must be shown to justify a reversal for error in the instructions." Deaton v. Commonwealth, 288 Ky. 246 , 156 S.W.2d 94, 100 (1941). 2001However, "not only error but injury must be shown to justify a reversal for error in the instructions." Deaton v. Commonwealth, 288 Ky. 246 , 156 S.W.2d 94, 100 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oakes v. Oakes
green
2 sentences1927Cantrell, many days before the beginning of the present term of this court and after the docket for this term had been completed by the clerk, came to Pikeville, and looked through the index to the docket for this term of court, and found that the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cummins Hatfield, for violation of the liquor law, was set down for trial for the 5th day of the present term, and the 8th day of October, 1926, and that the case of John Scott for violation of the liquor law was set for the same day. ’ ’ In this affidavit they failed to show that there was not a case of the Co 1927Cantrell, many days before the beginning of the present term of this court and after the docket for this term had been completed by the clerk, came to Pikeville, and looked through the index to the docket for this term of court, and found that the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Cummins Hatfield, for violation of the liquor law, was set down for trial for the 5th day of the present term, and the 8th day of October, 1926, and that the case of John Scott for violation of the liquor law was set for the same day. ’ ’ In this affidavit they failed to show that there was not a case of the Co | 2 | 1925–1927 |
Union Cent. Life Ins. v. Hughes' Admr.
neutral
2 sentences1913Insurance Co. v. Hughes’ Admr., 110 Ky., 26 .” Furthermore, it is well settled that it is not the duty of the trial judge, in a civil case, to give all the law of the ease; if a party desires an instruction upon a question upon which no instruction is given, he must ask it in order to put himself in a position to have the questioned reviewed. 1902Insurance Co. v. Hughes’ Adm’r ( 110 Ky., 26 ) ( 22 R., 1549 ) ( 60 S. W., 850 ). | 2 | 1902–1913 |
Boswell v. Citizens Savings Bank
neutral
1 sentence1951Boswell v. Citizens Savings Bank, 123 Ky. 485 , 96 S.W. 797 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Harding
green
2 sentences1941Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Harding, 209 Ky. 3 , 272 S. W. 3 . 1941Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Harding, 209 Ky. 3 , 272 S. W. 3 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Hargis v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1917It must always be important for the defendant, in view of the whole case, as presented.” To the same effect are Champ v. Com., 2 Met. 16 ; Collett v. Com., 121 S. W. 426 ; Hargiss v. Com., 135 Ky. 578 Reed v. Com., 138 Ky. 568 ; Parrish v. Com., 136 Ky. 11, It is impossible to see, when the number of threats are considered, which appellant testified, that the deceased-made to him, how the failure to admit the one rejected,, could be important to his defense, or that it would, in .anywise, have caused a different result of the trial, and especially, when the rejected threat was proved by other | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Reed v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence1917It must always be important for the defendant, in view of the whole case, as presented.” To the same effect are Champ v. Com., 2 Met. 16 ; Collett v. Com., 121 S. W. 426 ; Hargiss v. Com., 135 Ky. 578 Reed v. Com., 138 Ky. 568 ; Parrish v. Com., 136 Ky. 11, It is impossible to see, when the number of threats are considered, which appellant testified, that the deceased-made to him, how the failure to admit the one rejected,, could be important to his defense, or that it would, in .anywise, have caused a different result of the trial, and especially, when the rejected threat was proved by other | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.