scintilla rule in Kentucky

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1932Mere conjecture or suspicion is not sufficient to constitute evidence.” And in the case of Crump v. Chenault, 154 Ky, 187, 156 S. W. 1053, 1057 , this court in discussing the scintilla-rule said: “. . .

1917We are aware of the doctrine generally known as the scintilla rule, which is insisted upon by plaintiff’s counsel here, but in the case of Crump v. Chenault, supra, this court, in discussing the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to bring the ease within that rule, the issue there being the existence or non-existence of undue influence, said: “Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence, even though it be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant consequence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant ma

1920(Smith v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 433 ; Sanders v. Blakely, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1321 ; Bush v. Lisle, 89 Ky. 393 .) Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence, even though it.be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant eonsqeuence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction (Minnehan v. Grand Trunk, 138 Fed. 37 ),” and in the McDaniel will case, Judge Robertson writing the opinion says: “The opinions of witnesses are not entitled to much influe

1913(Minnehan v. Grand Trunk, 138 Fed., 37 .) ” * ‘ That a father may think it best to transfer a feeble-minded child from one institution not specially provided with facilities for instructing the child to another created and maintained by the State for educating children so afflicted, is not in our opinion evidence of undue influence on the part of the person who suggests the propriety of such action.

1934“Evidence” within the scintilla rule is something of substance, or “carrying quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.” Park Circuit & Realty Co. v. Ringo’s Guardian, 242 Ky. 255 , 46 S. W. (2d) 106, 107 ; Duff v. May, 245 Ky. 709 , 54 S. W. (2d) 4 ; Honaker v. Crutchfield, 247 Ky. 495 , 57 S. W. (2d) 502 ; Owens v. National Life & Acc. Ins.

1934“Evidence” within the scintilla rule is something of substance, or “carrying quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.” Park Circuit & Realty Co. v. Ringo’s Guardian, 242 Ky. 255 , 46 S. W. (2d) 106, 107 ; Duff v. May, 245 Ky. 709 , 54 S. W. (2d) 4 ; Honaker v. Crutchfield, 247 Ky. 495 , 57 S. W. (2d) 502 ; Owens v. National Life & Acc. Ins.

1931Co. v. Johnson’s Adm’x, 161 Ky. 824 , 171 S. W. 847 , it is said that the scintilla rule as applied in this jurisdiction does not mean that a case *637 should go to the jury where there is merely a spark or glimmer of evidence, and in the case of Wood v. Corcoran, 190 Ky. 621 , 228 S. W. 32, 33 , it is said: “This' court has in recent years approached toward the conclusion (not yet adopted) that there is no logical reason for submitting a case to the jury, under the doctrine of the scintilla rule when a verdict supported only by a scintilla of evidence would be set aside as flagrantly against

1931Co. v. Johnson’s Adm’x, 161 Ky. 824 , 171 S. W. 847 , it is said that the scintilla rule as applied in this jurisdiction does not mean that a case *637 should go to the jury where there is merely a spark or glimmer of evidence, and in the case of Wood v. Corcoran, 190 Ky. 621 , 228 S. W. 32, 33 , it is said: “This' court has in recent years approached toward the conclusion (not yet adopted) that there is no logical reason for submitting a case to the jury, under the doctrine of the scintilla rule when a verdict supported only by a scintilla of evidence would be set aside as flagrantly against

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1929Such evidence measures up to the principle defining what is meant by the scintilla rule in the cases of Wigginton’s Ex'r v. Wigginton, 194 Ky. 385 , 239 S. W. 455 ; Lang *390 ford’s Executor v. Miles, 189 Ky. 515 , 225 S. W. 246 ; Poll v. Patterson, 178 Ky. 22 , 198 S. W. 567 .

1920(Smith v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 433 ; Sanders v. Blakely, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1321 ; Bush v. Lisle, 89 Ky. 393 .) Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence, even though it.be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant eonsqeuence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction (Minnehan v. Grand Trunk, 138 Fed. 37 ),” and in the McDaniel will case, Judge Robertson writing the opinion says: “The opinions of witnesses are not entitled to much influe

1912(Smith v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky., 433 ; Sanders v. Blakely, 21 Ky. Law Rep., 1321 ; Bush v. Lisle, 89 Ky., 393 .) Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence even though it be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant consequence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.

1920(Smith v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 433 ; Sanders v. Blakely, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1321 ; Bush v. Lisle, 89 Ky. 393 .) Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence, even though it.be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant eonsqeuence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction (Minnehan v. Grand Trunk, 138 Fed. 37 ),” and in the McDaniel will case, Judge Robertson writing the opinion says: “The opinions of witnesses are not entitled to much influe

1912(Smith v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky., 433 ; Sanders v. Blakely, 21 Ky. Law Rep., 1321 ; Bush v. Lisle, 89 Ky., 393 .) Nor does this conclusion conflict with the scintilla rule, for that rule requires some evidence even though it be slight; and by evidence is meant something of substance and relevant consequence, and not vague, uncertain or irrelevant matter not carrying the quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.

1960Co. v. West, 1932, 245 Ky. 316 , 53 S.W.2d 692 (a very similar case, decided under the scintilla rule); National Life & Accident Ins.

1960Co. v. West, 1932, 245 Ky. 316 , 53 S.W.2d 692 (a very similar case, decided under the scintilla rule); National Life & Accident Ins.

1960Co. v. Kendall, 1933, 248 Ky. 768 , 59 S.W.2d 1009 ; Federal Life Ins.

1960Co. v. Kendall, 1933, 248 Ky. 768 , 59 S.W.2d 1009 ; Federal Life Ins.

1946In the Fyffe opinion following the practice as announced in the Nugent case, we said ( 301 Ky. 165 , 190 S. W. 2d 680 ): “Under our present practice where the court reaches the conclusion that a verdict is flagrantly against the evidence, we rule that there was not sufficient proof to have taken the case to the jury, since the scintilla rule has been abolished.” Indeed, it is extremely doubtful if the testimony in this prosecution raised even a scintilla of proof that either of the appellants even shot the gun at all on the occasion in question.

1945The company attempts to distinguish the Jones •case, 247 Ky. 432 , 57 S. W. 2d 72 , so strongly relied upon by appellee, on the ground that since that opinion came ■down the scintilla rule has been abolished in this jurisdiction, also, that the wording of the policy was different from the one here.

1945The company attempts to distinguish the Jones •case, 247 Ky. 432 , 57 S. W. 2d 72 , so strongly relied upon by appellee, on the ground that since that opinion came ■down the scintilla rule has been abolished in this jurisdiction, also, that the wording of the policy was different from the one here.

1945Rogers v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 83 , 158 S. W. 2d 144 ; Coots v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 637 , 175 S. W. 2d 139 . -In this case we have very slight proof to support an inference of corpus delicti, and nothing more than a suspicion that the defendant committed the presumed crime.

1945Rogers v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 83 , 158 S. W. 2d 144 ; Coots v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 637 , 175 S. W. 2d 139 . -In this case we have very slight proof to support an inference of corpus delicti, and nothing more than a suspicion that the defendant committed the presumed crime.

1945Rogers v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 83 , 158 S. W. 2d 144 ; Coots v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 637 , 175 S. W. 2d 139 . -In this case we have very slight proof to support an inference of corpus delicti, and nothing more than a suspicion that the defendant committed the presumed crime.

1945Rogers v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 83 , 158 S. W. 2d 144 ; Coots v. Commonwealth, 295 Ky. 637 , 175 S. W. 2d 139 . -In this case we have very slight proof to support an inference of corpus delicti, and nothing more than a suspicion that the defendant committed the presumed crime.

1942Privitt v. Commonwealth, 271 Ky. 665 , 113 S. W. (2d) 49, 52 .

1942Privitt v. Commonwealth, 271 Ky. 665 , 113 S. W. (2d) 49, 52 .

1942In the same text, in discussing the scintilla rule, which for a long while was adopted and followed by this court, (Section 4, page 4) it is said: “In measuring the quantum of evidence sufficient to take a case it has been usually stated that only a ‘scintilla’ is required (Iseman v. Hayes, 242 Ky. 302 , 46 S. W. (2d) 110 [85 A. L.

1942In the same text, in discussing the scintilla rule, which for a long while was adopted and followed by this court, (Section 4, page 4) it is said: “In measuring the quantum of evidence sufficient to take a case it has been usually stated that only a ‘scintilla’ is required (Iseman v. Hayes, 242 Ky. 302 , 46 S. W. (2d) 110 [85 A. L.

1938Huff v. Woosley, 184 Ky. 605 , 212 S. W. 597 .” Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts relied upon by the contestants, is there sufficient evidence to base the issue of undue influence in the instant case? *550 It is insisted by counsel that, on the application of the scintilla doctrine, there was slight evidence of rmdue influence exercised by the widow and her children on the. mind of the testator.

1938Huff v. Woosley, 184 Ky. 605 , 212 S. W. 597 .” Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts relied upon by the contestants, is there sufficient evidence to base the issue of undue influence in the instant case? *550 It is insisted by counsel that, on the application of the scintilla doctrine, there was slight evidence of rmdue influence exercised by the widow and her children on the. mind of the testator.

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1938A ease in which we upheld the verdict rejecting the will in contest as having been executed by the testator without sufficient mental capacity is Duval v. Duval, 249 Ky. 186 , 60 S. W. (2d) 351, 353 , in which the want of mental incapacity was largely supported by the fact of excessive use of intoxicating liquor by the testator, and in which we said: “On the question of mental incapacity, it is shown by a number of witnesses for appellees that for many years prior to his death Mr. Duval had been a constant drinker of alcoholic liquor, and there is much evidence to indicate that he often drank

1937Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Grant, 234 Ky. 276 , 27 S. W. (2d) 980 .

1937Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Grant, 234 Ky. 276 , 27 S. W. (2d) 980 .

1934“Evidence” within the scintilla rule is something of substance, or “carrying quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.” Park Circuit & Realty Co. v. Ringo’s Guardian, 242 Ky. 255 , 46 S. W. (2d) 106, 107 ; Duff v. May, 245 Ky. 709 , 54 S. W. (2d) 4 ; Honaker v. Crutchfield, 247 Ky. 495 , 57 S. W. (2d) 502 ; Owens v. National Life & Acc. Ins.

1934“Evidence” within the scintilla rule is something of substance, or “carrying quality of proof, or having fitness to induce conviction.” Park Circuit & Realty Co. v. Ringo’s Guardian, 242 Ky. 255 , 46 S. W. (2d) 106, 107 ; Duff v. May, 245 Ky. 709 , 54 S. W. (2d) 4 ; Honaker v. Crutchfield, 247 Ky. 495 , 57 S. W. (2d) 502 ; Owens v. National Life & Acc. Ins.

1934Co., 234 Ky. 788 , 29 S. W. (2d) 557 ; Cecil v. Oertel Co., 239 Ky. 825 , 40 S. W. (2d) 328 ; Dossenbach et al. v. Reidhar’s Ex’x et al., 245 Ky. 449 , 53 S. W. (2d) 731 .

1934Co., 234 Ky. 788 , 29 S. W. (2d) 557 ; Cecil v. Oertel Co., 239 Ky. 825 , 40 S. W. (2d) 328 ; Dossenbach et al. v. Reidhar’s Ex’x et al., 245 Ky. 449 , 53 S. W. (2d) 731 .

1934Co., 234 Ky. 788 , 29 S. W. (2d) 557 ; Cecil v. Oertel Co., 239 Ky. 825 , 40 S. W. (2d) 328 ; Dossenbach et al. v. Reidhar’s Ex’x et al., 245 Ky. 449 , 53 S. W. (2d) 731 .