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 1880–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bender v. Eatongreen2 sentences2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception). 2004See id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception). 11 . | 2 | 2 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinsongreen2 sentences2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception). 2005See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dickinson, 29 S.W.3d 796, 808 (Ky.2000) (noting that deposing an attorney or paralegal involved in the case would normally fall under the “certain special cases” exception because of the attorney-client privilege); id. at 801-02 (noting that a judge’s failure to include findings of fact as required by CR 34.01 in a premises inspection order met the exception); Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 803 (holding that a judge’s order for production of a doctor’s report was a violation of the then recently enacted Civil Rules and thus fell under the exception). | 2 | 2 |
Lexington Public Library v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2004Ky., 90 S.W.3d 53, 62 (2002). 12 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harrod v. Harrod
neutral
2 sentences1932But the report of the warning order attorney was not introduced in evidence, and the attack being collateral, and the burden being on appellant to show that want of jurisdiction affirmatively appeared on the record, Wallace v. Lackey, 173 Ky. 140 , 190 S. W. 709 , Harrod v. Harrod, 167 Ky. 308 , 180 S. W. 797 , it will be presumed in the absence of his report that the warning-order attorney complied with the order of appointment, and took the necessary steps to notify the defendant, Hepsey Parkey, of the pendency and nature of the action. 1932But the report of the warning order attorney was not introduced in evidence, and the attack being collateral, and the burden being on appellant to show that want of jurisdiction affirmatively appeared on the record, Wallace v. Lackey, 173 Ky. 140 , 190 S. W. 709 , Harrod v. Harrod, 167 Ky. 308 , 180 S. W. 797 , it will be presumed in the absence of his report that the warning-order attorney complied with the order of appointment, and took the necessary steps to notify the defendant, Hepsey Parkey, of the pendency and nature of the action. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Wallace v. Lackey
neutral
2 sentences1932But the report of the warning order attorney was not introduced in evidence, and the attack being collateral, and the burden being on appellant to show that want of jurisdiction affirmatively appeared on the record, Wallace v. Lackey, 173 Ky. 140 , 190 S. W. 709 , Harrod v. Harrod, 167 Ky. 308 , 180 S. W. 797 , it will be presumed in the absence of his report that the warning-order attorney complied with the order of appointment, and took the necessary steps to notify the defendant, Hepsey Parkey, of the pendency and nature of the action. 1932But the report of the warning order attorney was not introduced in evidence, and the attack being collateral, and the burden being on appellant to show that want of jurisdiction affirmatively appeared on the record, Wallace v. Lackey, 173 Ky. 140 , 190 S. W. 709 , Harrod v. Harrod, 167 Ky. 308 , 180 S. W. 797 , it will be presumed in the absence of his report that the warning-order attorney complied with the order of appointment, and took the necessary steps to notify the defendant, Hepsey Parkey, of the pendency and nature of the action. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Bowles v. Bowles
neutral
2 sentences1928The position of the appellant in this case was sustained by this court in its opinion in Bowles v. Bowles, 222 Ky. 325 , 300 S. W. 880 , and upon the authority of that ease it is necessary to reverse the judgment in this case. 1928The position of the appellant in this case was sustained by this court in its opinion in Bowles v. Bowles, 222 Ky. 325 , 300 S. W. 880 , and upon the authority of that ease it is necessary to reverse the judgment in this case. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Dineen v. Hall
neutral
2 sentences1927The report of the warning order attorney made no reference to an examination of the case, and, under the holding of this court in Dineen v. Hall, 112 Ky. 273 , 65 S. W. 445 , 66 S. W. 392 , 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1615 , and quoted in Ramsey v. Keith, 76 S. W. 142 , 25 Ky. Law Rep. 582 , it was necessary for the report of the attorney for a nonresident to show that he had examined the ease. 1927The report of the warning order attorney made no reference to an examination of the case, and, under the holding of this court in Dineen v. Hall, 112 Ky. 273 , 65 S. W. 445 , 66 S. W. 392 , 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1615 , and quoted in Ramsey v. Keith, 76 S. W. 142 , 25 Ky. Law Rep. 582 , it was necessary for the report of the attorney for a nonresident to show that he had examined the ease. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Miller v. Hall
neutral
1 sentence1880A commissioner’s report of settlement was filed and the court on final hearing quashed the report and dismissed the bill; and this court held such.action correct, although there were no exceptions, because the report was on its face vague and uncertain, and because it appeared that the defendants were about to file exceptions and were prevented from doing so by the court, “who decided that it would hear and determine the validity of the objections to the report on the hearing of the case.” In Miller v. Hall, 1 Bush 229 , the sale was set aside, but certainly not without motion or objection by | 1 | 1880–1880 |
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.