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.
7 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
McManus v. Kentucky Retirement Systemsgreen2 sentences2023In summation, Wilson’s argument does not satisfy the two-part McManus test because (1) KYRS’s decision is supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Wilson failed to put forth any credible evidence “so compelling that no reasonable person could have failed to be persuaded by it.” McManus, 124 S.W.3d at 458 . 2023In summation, Wilson’s argument does not satisfy the two-part McManus test because (1) KYRS’s decision is supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Wilson failed to put forth any credible evidence “so compelling that no reasonable person could have failed to be persuaded by it.” McManus, 124 S.W.3d at 458 . | 2 | 3 |
Ky. Ret. Sys. v. Ashcraftgreen2 sentences2021Ashcraft, 559 S.W.3d at 817 . 2021Ashcraft, 559 S.W.3d at 817 . | 1 | 3 |
Bradley v. Ky. Ret. Sys.green2 sentences2024Bradley, 567 S.W.3d at 125 (“The Board’s final decision is plainly supported by substantial evidence and Bradley has failed to meet the McManus standard for reversal of the fact-finder’s decision. 2024Bradley, 567 S.W.3d at 125 (“The Board’s final decision is plainly supported by substantial evidence and Bradley has failed to meet the McManus standard for reversal of the fact-finder’s decision. | 1 | 1 |
DANVILLE-BOYLE COUNTY v. Centre Estatesgreen2 sentences2020Danville-Boyle County Planning Comm’n v. Centre Estates, 190 S.W.3d 354, 359 (Ky. App. 2006). [U]nder the McManus standard, a court cannot substitute its judgment on those contested issues of fact but if the appealing party has not met his burden of proof with the fact-finder, the court can properly, indeed must, consider whether that party’s proof was so compelling that no reasonable person could have failed to be persuaded. 2020Danville-Boyle County Planning Comm’n v. Centre Estates, 190 S.W.3d 354, 359 (Ky. App. 2006). [U]nder the McManus standard, a court cannot substitute its judgment on those contested issues of fact but if the appealing party has not met his burden of proof with the fact-finder, the court can properly, indeed must, consider whether that party’s proof was so compelling that no reasonable person could have failed to be persuaded. | 1 | 1 |
Bowlin Group, LLC v. Secretary of Laborgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Bowlin Group LLC v. Secretary of Labor, 437 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. App. 2014) (applying McManus as to Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission decision); Morgan v. Nat. 2018See, e.g., Bowlin Group LLC v. Secretary of Labor, 437 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. App. 2014) (applying McManus as to Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission decision); Morgan v. Nat. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Starks v. Kentucky Health Facilities
green
2 sentences2024If this high standard is met, so is KRS 13B.150(2)(d), which allows for reversal when a final order is “[a]rbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.” Id. -31- While substantial evidence plays a role in a second-level McManus review, the review is more nuanced than simply searching for substantial evidence or the lack thereof. 2024If this high standard is met, so is KRS 13B.150(2)(d), which allows for reversal when a final order is “[a]rbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.” Id. -31- While substantial evidence plays a role in a second-level McManus review, the review is more nuanced than simply searching for substantial evidence or the lack thereof. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.