wisdom rule in Kentucky

2013Reichle v. Reichle, Ky., 719 S.W.2d 442 (1986).

2011Roofing & Constr., Inc., 22 O.S.H.C. 1361, 1367 (2008); Seedorff Masonry, Inc., 21 O.S.H.C. at 1512; Secretary of Labor v. N. Tex. Contracting, Inc., 21 O.S.H.C. 1419, 1423 (2006); Secretary of Labor v. Sawyer Steel, Inc., 21 O.S.H.C. 1196, 1201 (2004) (“Arguing that a hazard does not exist is an impermissible challenge to the wisdom of the standard.”); Secretary of Labor v. Randalls Food & Drugs, Inc., 20 O.S.H.C. 1587, 1592 (2003), petition for review denied 116 Fed.Appx. 501 (5th Cir. 2004).

1983Although it may well be that a hospital owes no duty to admit a patient in absence of a clear emergency or an order from an attending physician, [cf. Hill v. Ohio County, Ky., 468 S.W.2d 306 (1970), and Richard v. Adair Hospital Foundation Corporation, Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 791 (1978)], we are not here required to approve or disapprove the wisdom of such a rule.

1983Although it may well be that a hospital owes no duty to admit a patient in absence of a clear emergency or an order from an attending physician, [ cf. Hill v. Ohio County, Ky., 468 S.W.2d 306 (1970), and Richard v. Adair Hospital Foundation Corporation, Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 791 (1978)], we are not here *597 required to approve or disapprove the wisdom of such a rule.

1983Although it may well be that a hospital owes no duty to admit a patient in absence of a clear emergency or an order from an attending physician, [cf. Hill v. Ohio County, Ky., 468 S.W.2d 306 (1970), and Richard v. Adair Hospital Foundation Corporation, Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 791 (1978)], we are not here required to approve or disapprove the wisdom of such a rule.

1983Although it may well be that a hospital owes no duty to admit a patient in absence of a clear emergency or an order from an attending physician, [ cf. Hill v. Ohio County, Ky., 468 S.W.2d 306 (1970), and Richard v. Adair Hospital Foundation Corporation, Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 791 (1978)], we are not here *597 required to approve or disapprove the wisdom of such a rule.

1929We have often announced this rule, and in Hopkins v. Com., 210 Ky. 378 , 275 S. W. 881 , we gave the reasons that induced us to adopt it, and this dispute between opposing counsel illustrates the wisdom of the rule.

1929We have often announced this rule, and in Hopkins v. Com., 210 Ky. 378 , 275 S. W. 881 , we gave the reasons that induced us to adopt it, and this dispute between opposing counsel illustrates the wisdom of the rule.

1924There is no claim here that this question could not have been raised on the first trial, and this court in the case of Davis v. McCorkle, 14 Bush 746 , in considering on appeal a question of pleading which had not been raised upon a former appeal, quoted with approval as follows from the case of Henderson v. Henderson, 3 Hare, 115: “Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in and adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to bring forward their whole ease, and will not, except under special circumstances, permit the same parties to open the

1922Williams for use, etc. v. Stallard, 185 Ky. 10 , also lays down the rule that an action is not maintainable by a taxpayer without first demanding that the fiscal court bring it.

1917(Gillum v. Commonwealth, 121 S. W. 445 .)” See, also, Romans v. McGinnis, 156 Ky. 205 . ■ The arguments presented for and against the verdict afford a good illustration of the wisdom of the rule that we must presume there was no error committed in the trial court in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing all that the court did.

1911Marshall, 140, and Lindsey v. Rankin, 4 Bibb, 482 .) The wisdom of this rule is well illustrated in this case, for at the time Polly A. Williams testified she still owed a balance on the land in question, which was due to' N. J.