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 3 courts 1961–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daugherty v. TELEKgreen1 sentence2015We reasoned "the ministerial exception does not strip a court of its jurisdiction but, 32 Daugherty, 366 S.W.3d at 467 ("Once filed, a court has subject matter jurisdiction of the case so long as the pleadings reveal that it is the kind of case assigned to that court by a statute or constitutional provision."). 33Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 286, 290 (Ind. 2003). 34Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir. 2002). 16 instead, simply disallows the forward progress of the particular suit." 35 This description is particularl | 1 | 1 |
Bryce v. Episcopal Church In The Diocese Of Coloradogreen1 sentence2015We reasoned "the ministerial exception does not strip a court of its jurisdiction but, 32 Daugherty, 366 S.W.3d at 467 ("Once filed, a court has subject matter jurisdiction of the case so long as the pleadings reveal that it is the kind of case assigned to that court by a statute or constitutional provision."). 33Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 286, 290 (Ind. 2003). 34Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir. 2002). 16 instead, simply disallows the forward progress of the particular suit." 35 This description is particularl | 1 | 1 |
Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc.green1 sentence2015We reasoned "the ministerial exception does not strip a court of its jurisdiction but, 32 Daugherty, 366 S.W.3d at 467 ("Once filed, a court has subject matter jurisdiction of the case so long as the pleadings reveal that it is the kind of case assigned to that court by a statute or constitutional provision."). 33Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 796 N.E.2d 286, 290 (Ind. 2003). 34Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir. 2002). 16 instead, simply disallows the forward progress of the particular suit." 35 This description is particularl | 1 | 1 |
Yanero v. Davisgreen1 sentence2014See Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Ky. 2009) (discussing the "law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrine) ] of governmental immunity”); Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510, 519 (Ky.2001) (noting that "governmental immunity” is different from but is "derived from the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity”). | 1 | 1 |
Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.green1 sentence2014See Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Ky. 2009) (discussing the "law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrine) ] of governmental immunity”); Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510, 519 (Ky.2001) (noting that "governmental immunity” is different from but is "derived from the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity”). | 1 | 1 |
Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Companygreen1 sentence1991And in Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Company, Inc., 383 F.2d 358, 362 (6th Cir.1967), the United States Court of Appeals determined that the related doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as the “issue preclusion” doctrine, is applicable in the following situation: [W]here the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leonard v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2022And because it is not the same claim, the appellate resolution of an alleged direct error cannot serve as a procedural bar to a related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Moore v. Com., Cabinet for Human Res.
green
1 sentence2022He also argues that this rule is “exactly the same as it relates to the related doctrine of res judicata.” He cites Moore v. Commonwealth, 954 S.W.2d 317 (Ky. 1997), for this proposition. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Peters v. Bowman
green
2 sentences1961While there is some authority holding that the applicability of attractive nuisance or a related doctrine is a question for the jury, I think the better view is expressed in Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345 , 47 P. 598 , 599, 56 Am.St.Rep. 106 , as follows: “But the owner of a thing dangerous and attractive to children is not always culpable, and therefore is not always liable for an injury to a child drawn into danger by the attraction * * *. 1961While there is some authority holding that the applicability of attractive nuisance or a related doctrine is a question for the jury, I think the better view is expressed in Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345 , 47 P. 598 , 599, 56 Am.St.Rep. 106 , as follows: "But the owner of a thing dangerous and attractive to children is not always culpable, and therefore is not always liable for an injury to a child drawn into danger by the attraction * * *. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.