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.
6 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.green2 sentences2023See Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 914 (danger posed by open and obvious conditions like stairs and potholes may not be considered an unreasonable danger; “the condition is a warning in itself and places the plaintiff on the same level of knowledge about the premises as the land-possessor defendant”). 2017Shelton, 413 S.W.3d at 914 (noting that “the open-and-obvious doctrine.... eliminates a defendant’s- duty to warn because the condition is a warning in itself.”). | 3 | 3 |
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Webbgreen1 sentence2017As we noted in She`lton~, premises owners,. notwithstanding their affirmative duty to provide invitees with safe premises, generally have no duty to warn of obviously dangerous conditions because the condition serves as its own warning Shelton, 413 S.W.3d, at 914 (noting that “the open-and-obvious doctrine . . . eliminates a defendant’s duty to warn because the condition is a warning in itself.`”]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ridley v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1962In Ridley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 156 , it was contended that the statutes mandatorily require as a condition of a hearing for revocation of probation that the probation officer submit a report as to the manner in which defendant had violated the terms of his probation; that he is not required to answer oral allegations of alleged misconduct, and that a written accusation similar to an indictment be presented. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Seelbach, Inc. v. Mellman
green
2 sentences1953City of Madisonville v. Poole, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 133 ; Seelbach, Inc., v. Mellman, 293 Ky. 790 , 170 S.W.2d 18 . 1953City of Madisonville v. Poole, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 133 ; Seelbach, Inc., v. Mellman, 293 Ky. 790 , 170 S.W.2d 18 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
City of Madisonville v. Poole
green
1 sentence1953City of Madisonville v. Poole, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 133 ; Seelbach, Inc., v. Mellman, 293 Ky. 790 , 170 S.W.2d 18 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.