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 2003–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Travis v. Travisgreen2 sentences2014Id. (internal citations omitted). 2007The source of funds rule “simply means that the character of the property, i.e., whether it is marital, non-marital, or both, is determined by the source of the funds used to acquire property.” Travis, 59 S.W.3d at 909, n. 10 . | 1 | 2 |
Kleet v. Kleetgreen1 sentence2023Kleet, 264 S.W.3d at 614 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Sexton v. Sextongreen1 sentence2022See id. at 271 . -6- Moreover, Tonya has failed to demonstrate adequate tracing upon which the court could properly rely. | 1 | 1 |
Rearden v. Reardengreen1 sentence2016Rearden v. Rearden, 296 S.W.3d 438, 441-42 (Ky. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Meredithgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Travis, 59 S.W.3d at 909 n. 10 (describing the source of funds rule). 2003See, e.g., Travis, 59 S.W.3d at 909 n. 10 (describing the source of funds rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.