Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.010 (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Repealed, 1974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: Corrupt practices as grounds; effect if successful candidate found guilty. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 152, sec. 98. -- Amended 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 151, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1565b-11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1945–1971 · leading case: Pickard v. Jones, 243 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).
Pickard v. Jones, 243 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “Taylor, claimed the right to the nomination under the terms of KRS 122.010. It is not necessary that we undertake to reconcile this section with KRS 122.”
Upton v. Knuckles, 470 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “The contest of primary elections is covered by KRS 122.010, etc. As these statutes contain much material which is not relevant to this particular case, I will hereby set them out in an abbreviated form quoting that material which is relevant.”
Sparks v. Boggs, 339 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The question of whether a successful candidate has violated the Corrupt Practices Act cannot be determined in a suit brought by taxpayers and electors, Dietz v.”
Gregory v. Stubblefield, 316 S.W.2d 689 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “The contest of a primary election is a statutory proceeding. KRS 122.”
Napier v. Noplis, 318 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “Although violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, KRS Chapter 123, are specifically referred to by KRS 122.010 as a ground of contest, apparently any violations of law affecting the election may be grounds for contest.”
Dupin v. Sullivan, 355 S.W.2d 676 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “KRS 122.010. However, except in primary elections (cf.”
Young v. Jefferson Cnty. Election Comm'n, 200 S.W.2d 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947). “KRS 122.010. The duties of the County Board are clearly defined as ministerial.”
Britton v. Garland, 335 S.W.2d 329 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “o suggest that the fault lies not in the fact that the statute bars a contest by a candidate who himself is guilty of corrupt practices, but in the failure of the legislature to comply with the mandate of Section 151 of the Constitution of Kentucky to provide in some way…”
Payne v. Blanton, 229 S.W.2d 438 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “KRS 122.010. As amended, the statute provides the contestee may allege in his pleading that the Act was violated by or for the contestant, and “If it appears upon the trial” that the contestant or others in his behalf had violated the Act, “the contest action shall be dismissed…”
Shackleford v. Barnette, 445 S.W.2d 449 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “Therefore, he urges that the failure to timely file the answer and counterclaim required the trial court to not only strike it from the record but to render judgment in his favor since he had alleged that Shackle-ford had violated certain provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act,…”
Withrow v. Willis, 447 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “020), but in contesting the election Withrow himself would have had to be free of fraudulent practice or his contest would have been dismissed (KRS 122.010). Withrow did not allege fraud on the part of Willis, but rather alleged failure on the part of Willis to file financial…”
Burke v. Tackett, 233 S.W.2d 115 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “Like the trial court, we do not find it necessary to examine the record as it relates to the other charges, particularly, that pressed by the appellee, that the contestant had made certain promises which, the appellee contends, bring him within the terms of' the statute.”
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.