46 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2026 25 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quisenberry v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2026It was Mother who moved to continue the hearing, and the family court (reluctantly) did so over the objection of the Cabinet and the GAL. “[A] party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.” Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 37 (Ky. 2011). “[I]nvited errors that amount to a waiver, i.e., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review.” Id. at 38 . 2026It was Mother who moved to continue the hearing, and the family court (reluctantly) did so over the objection of the Cabinet and the GAL. “[A] party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.” Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 37 (Ky. 2011). “[I]nvited errors that amount to a waiver, i.e., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review.” Id. at 38 . | 27 | 31 |
United States v. Ronald Myersgreen2 sentences2026Otherwise, a party would be permitted “to take advantage of an error produced by his own act.” Wright v. Jackson, 329 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Ky. 1959); United States v. Myers, 854 F.3d 341, 355 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Challenges to such invited errors are forfeited.”). “[I]nvited errors that amount to a waiver, i.e., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review.” Quisenberry, 336 S.W.3d at 38 . 2025Otherwise, a party would be permitted “to take advantage of an error produced by his own act.” Wright v. Jackson, 329 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Ky. 1959); United States v. Myers, 854 F.3d 341, 355 (6th Cir. 2017) (“Challenges to such invited errors are forfeited.”). | 5 | 5 |
Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2015This situation presents circumstances akin to those where an appellant has "invited error." See, e.g., Wright v. Jackson, 329 S.W.2d 560 (Ky.1959) ("We have often held that a party is estopped to take advantage of an error produced by his own act."); Miles v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 173 S.W.2d 990, 998 , 295 Ky. 156, 173 (1943) ("It is the rule that one cannot complain of an invited error."). . . . [T]he rationale behind the notion [is] that one cannot commit to an act . . . and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment . . . . 2015This situation presents circumstances akin to those where an appellant has "invited error." See, e.g., Wright v. Jackson, 329 S.W.2d 560 (Ky.1959) ("We have often held that a party is estopped to take advantage of an error produced by his own act."); Miles v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 173 S.W.2d 990, 998 , 295 Ky. 156, 173 (1943) ("It is the rule that one cannot complain of an invited error."). . . . [T]he rationale behind the notion [is] that one cannot commit to an act . . . and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment . . . . | 4 | 8 |
Webster v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“Invited errors amount to a waiver and are not subject to appellate review.” Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014) (citing Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372 , 376–77 (Ky. 2013)). 2024“Invited errors amount to a waiver and are not subject to appellate review.” Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014) (citing Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372, 376-77 (Ky. 2013)). | 4 | 4 |
Miles v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2024“It is the rule that one cannot complain of an invited error.” Miles v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 173 S.W.2d 990, 998 (Ky. 1943). 2015This situation presents circumstances akin to those where an appellant has "invited error." See, e.g., Wright v. Jackson, 329 S.W.2d 560 (Ky.1959) ("We have often held that a party is estopped to take advantage of an error produced by his own act."); Miles v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 173 S.W.2d 990, 998 , 295 Ky. 156, 173 (1943) ("It is the rule that one cannot complain of an invited error."). . . . [T]he rationale behind the notion [is] that one cannot commit to an act . . . and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment . . . . | 4 | 4 |
Gray v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“Generally, a party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.” Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 37 (Ky. 2011) (citing Gray, 203 S.W.3d at 686 ). 2025In Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 37 (Ky. 2011) (citation omitted), this Court held that “[A] party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.” See also Gray v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d 679, 686 (Ky. 2006) (citation omitted) (“A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself[[.]”). 10 “Trial courts must admit evidence under KRE 404(b) ‘cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused’s propensity to commit a certain type of crime.’” Riggle v. Commonwealth, 686 S.W.3d 105 , 112 (Ky. 2 | 3 | 19 |
Thornton v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025“Invited errors amount to a waiver and are not subject to appellate review.” Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014) (citing Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372 , 376–77 (Ky. 2013)). 2024“Invited errors amount to a waiver and are not subject to appellate review.” Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014) (citing Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372, 376-77 (Ky. 2013)). | 3 | 4 |
Graves v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025Graves v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 144, 152 (Ky. 2012) (holding defendant’s affirmative agreement to a defective instruction constituted invited error). 2024Graves v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 144, 152 (Ky. 2012) (holding defendant’s affirmative agreement to a defective instruction constituted invited error). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2025Appellate courts should not encourage tactics which “allow a litigant to lead a trial court down a primrose path and later, on appeal, profit from the invited error.” United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 2013). 2024In my view, an appellate court should not encourage tactics which “allow a litigant to lead a trial court down a primrose path and later, on appeal, profit from the invited error.” United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58, 63 (1st Cir. 2013). | 2 | 2 |
Kelly v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2023In Kelly v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 854, 866 (Ky. 2018), the Court reiterated this point and noted even a statement made violating the defendant’s Miranda rights that was later admitted at trial to be an invited error. 2023In Kelly v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 854, 866 (Ky. 2018), the Court reiterated this point and noted even a statement made violating the defendant’s Miranda rights that was later admitted at trial to be an invited error. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Ernest Charles Lewisgreen2 sentences2015"A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself, particularly where . . . it is not clear that the defendant was prejudiced thereby." United States v. Lewis, 524 F.2d 991, 992 (5th Cir.1975). 2015"A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself, particularly where . . . it is not clear that the defendant was prejudiced thereby." United States v. Lewis, 524 F.2d 991, 992 (5th Cir.1975). | 2 | 2 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2025In Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 37 (Ky. 2011) (citation omitted), this Court held that “[A] party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.” See also Gray v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d 679, 686 (Ky. 2006) (citation omitted) (“A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself[[.]”). 10 “Trial courts must admit evidence under KRE 404(b) ‘cautiously, with an eye towards eliminating evidence which is relevant only as proof of an accused’s propensity to commit a certain type of crime.’” Riggle v. Commonwealth, 686 S.W.3d 105 , 112 (Ky. 2 | 1 | 1 |
Tackett v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2023See also Tackett v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2014) (“[A] party cannot ask a trial court to do something and, when the court does it, complain on appeal that the court erred.”); Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (“Generally, a party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.”). 37 Hubbard, 633 S.W.2d at 68 . 20 stated he had no objection, but then stated twice that his client would not be prejudiced by a single guilt phase trial: Court: Okay, so the jury’s going to know he’s a convicted felon, and everybody is okay with that? | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006Although most criminal cases addressing the issue of invited error do so in the context of a criminal defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial, see United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir. 1981); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 113 S.W.3d 128, 134-36 (Ky.2003), the rationale behind the notion that one cannot commit to an act (such as waiving a jury trial) and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment is equally applicable when a criminal defendant fails to act (such as foregoing the opportunity to question a witness) as Appellant's defense counsel did 2006Although most criminal cases addressing the issue of invited error do so in the context of a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial, see United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1981); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 113 S.W.3d 128, 134-36 (Ky.2003), the rationale behind the notion that one cannot commit to an act (such as waiving a jury trial) and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment is equally applicable when a criminal defendant fads to act (such as foregoing the opportunity to question a witness) as Appellant’s defense counsel did he | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clayton R. Page, IIIgreen2 sentences2006Although most criminal cases addressing the issue of invited error do so in the context of a criminal defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial, see United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir. 1981); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 113 S.W.3d 128, 134-36 (Ky.2003), the rationale behind the notion that one cannot commit to an act (such as waiving a jury trial) and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment is equally applicable when a criminal defendant fails to act (such as foregoing the opportunity to question a witness) as Appellant's defense counsel did 2006Although most criminal cases addressing the issue of invited error do so in the context of a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial, see United States v. Page, 661 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1981); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 113 S.W.3d 128, 134-36 (Ky.2003), the rationale behind the notion that one cannot commit to an act (such as waiving a jury trial) and later complain on appeal that the trial court erred to his detriment is equally applicable when a criminal defendant fads to act (such as foregoing the opportunity to question a witness) as Appellant’s defense counsel did he | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louise Han PEREZ; Joseph Eclavea Perez; John Velasco Cruz, Defendants-Appellants
green
2 sentences2025Therefore, ‘[g]enerally, a party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.’ Id. at 37 (citing Gray v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d 679 (Ky. 2006)). 2023While this case presents a close call on the invited error issue because Isby did not affirmatively state an objection when the Trial Court indicated it would give the instructions as is, our holding on this issue is heavily based on these unique facts from which we cannot discern Isby making an “invitation[] that reflect[s] the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right[.]” Quisenberry, 336 S.W.3d at 38 (citing United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 1997). | 4 | 2011–2025 |
State v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2017He is not barred by the doctrine of invited error from seeking palpable error review'. ¢~ In support of the claim that his trial was fatally tainted by the manner of the GALls participation,'Appellant relies upon State,v. Harrison, 24 P.3d 936 [Utah 2001), as persuasive authority. 2017In support of the claim that his trial was fatally tainted by the manner of the GAL’s participation, Appellant relies upon State»v. Harrison, 24 P.3d 936 (Utah 2001), as persuasive authority. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Wright v. House of Imports, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025The Court in House of Imports explicitly framed the invited error analysis in terms of our oft- quoted statement, that “a party cannot ‘feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate court.’” Id. at 214 n.6 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hubbard v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2023See also Tackett v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2014) (“[A] party cannot ask a trial court to do something and, when the court does it, complain on appeal that the court erred.”); Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19 (Ky. 2011) (“Generally, a party is estopped from asserting an invited error on appeal.”). 37 Hubbard, 633 S.W.2d at 68 . 20 stated he had no objection, but then stated twice that his client would not be prejudiced by a single guilt phase trial: Court: Okay, so the jury’s going to know he’s a convicted felon, and everybody is okay with that? | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2011Gray v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 679 (Ky.2006). *38 Noting the United States Supreme Court’s distinction, in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), between forfeited errors, which are subject to plain error review, and waived errors, which are not, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that invited errors that amount to a waiver, ie., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review. 2011Gray v. Commonwealth, 208 S.W.3d 679 (Ky.2006). *38 Noting the United States Supreme Court’s distinction, in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), between forfeited errors, which are subject to plain error review, and waived errors, which are not, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that invited errors that amount to a waiver, ie., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Saunders' Executors v. Armour & Co.
neutral
2 sentences1937Saunders’ Ex’rs v. Armour & Co., 220 Ky. 719 , 295 S. W. 1014 . 1937Saunders’ Ex’rs v. Armour & Co., 220 Ky. 719 , 295 S. W. 1014 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.