Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 119.070 (2026)
Repealed, 1974
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Catchline at repeal: Special provisions for nomination of candidates for judicial offices. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 97. -- Amended 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 255, sec. 123. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1550-6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1946–2003 · leading case: Bd. of Trs. v. Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth, 132 S.W.3d 770 (Ky. 2003).
Bd. of Trs. v. Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth, 132 S.W.3d 770 (Ky. 2003). “Our predecessor court invalidated former KRS 119.070(4), applicable to the nomination of judicial candidates, because "the intent of the subsection in question is so obscure that any effort to ascribe some rational meaning to it would be based solely on conjecture.”
Burke v. Stephenson, 305 S.W.2d 926 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “The appellants’ second contention is that the nomination of Burke by the party committee was expressly authorized by subsection (4) of KRS 119.070. The first three subsections of KRS 119.”
Mann v. Cornett, 445 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “Cornett further attacked the legality of the Petition for Nomination on the ground that it failed to conform to the provisions of KRS 119.070, alleging that Mann was not nominated by any bona fide party and that no such party as “Equal Justice Under the Law” exists.”
Stephenson v. Riddle, 371 S.W.2d 871 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “Keesee maintains that the reasoning of the Sturgill case is not applicable to a judicial office, because under KRS 119.070 a person may seek and receive a party nomination without his being a member or adherent of that party, and even though he is an avowed supporter of the…”
Hawkins v. Auxier, 223 S.W.2d 753 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “The petition charges that when the contestee “committed the overt act of filing as a Candidate under the Democratic Rooster in a Democratic Primary that he forfeited all rights, titles, and interests whatsoever, that he had or may have had as a Candidate for Circuit Judge in the…”
Brumleve v. Ruth, 195 S.W.2d 777 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 119.070. It appears that Hal O. Williams and Norris McPherson were also duly proposed as nominees of the Democratic Party.”
McDonald v. Revell, 475 S.W.2d 491 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “In the primary election Revell and McDonald each had “cross-filed” under the nonpartisan judicial nomination law, KRS 119.070, seeking both the Democratic and the Republican nominations.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 119.070(1) — 1 case
Mann v. Cornett, 445 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “Cornett further attacked the legality of the Petition for Nomination on the ground that it failed to conform to the provisions of KRS 119.070, alleging that Mann was not nominated by any bona fide party and that no such party as “Equal Justice Under the Law” exists.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 119.070(2) — 1 case
Mann v. Cornett, 445 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “Cornett further attacked the legality of the Petition for Nomination on the ground that it failed to conform to the provisions of KRS 119.070, alleging that Mann was not nominated by any bona fide party and that no such party as “Equal Justice Under the Law” exists.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 119.070(4) — 1 case
Bd. of Trs. v. Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth, 132 S.W.3d 770 (Ky. 2003). “Our predecessor court invalidated former KRS 119.070(4), applicable to the nomination of judicial candidates, because "the intent of the subsection in question is so obscure that any effort to ascribe some rational meaning to it would be based solely on conjecture.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.