Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.020 (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Repealed, 1974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: Contest of primary election; who may institute; when, where and how instituted; process; pleadings. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Amended 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 151, sec. 2. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1550-28.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1942–2014 · leading case: Hon George W. Davis III v. Hon Thomas D. Wingate Judge, Franklin Circuit Court Div. II, 437 S.W.3d 720 (Ky. 2014).
Hon George W. Davis III v. Hon Thomas D. Wingate Judge, Franklin Circuit Court Div. II, 437 S.W.3d 720 (Ky. 2014). “The Court noted that the procedures to be followed in an action for recount were statutorily prescribed in KRS 122.020 and KRS 122.060. Moreover, the Court stated, "[s]uch procedure cannot be changed or obviated by incorporating grounds for a recount .”
Upton v. Knuckles, 470 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “KRS 122.020 provides: "Any candidate for nomination to office at a primary election held under the provisions of KRS 119.”
Gregory v. Stubblefield, 316 S.W.2d 689 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “The bases of the trial court’s ruling were that the names of the alleged illegal voters had not been pleaded within the time allowed and circumstances had not been pleaded constituting such fraud that the elective effect of the vote in Logan County could not be determined.”
Pickard v. Jones, 243 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “It is not necessary that we undertake to reconcile this section with KRS 122.020, which denies the right to contest an election to a candidate who has not received as many as fifty per cent of the votes cast for the successful candidate.”
Durr v. Washington Cnty., 339 S.W.2d 444 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “It appears to be the better rule in election contest cases that pleadings cannot be amended to introduce new grounds of contest after expiration of the time for filing the original pleading.”
Ritchie v. Mann, 500 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). “KRS 122.020. Ritchie and Inman were candidates for the Democratic nomination for the office of magistrate in the primary election held on May 29, 1973.”
Brock v. Saylor, 189 S.W.2d 688 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “KRS 122.020 .and 122.070. In a recount proceeding the opposing party .”
Shackleford v. Barnette, 445 S.W.2d 449 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “Shortly thereafter Barnette instituted this contest proceeding against Shackle-ford pursuant to the provisions of KRS 122.020 alleging, in summary, that Shackle-ford had violated the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act (KRS 123.”
Wooton v. Begley, 305 S.W.2d 270 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “Under KRS 122.020, a suit contesting a primary election must be commenced within 15 days from the day of election.”
Berndt v. Fitzpatrick, 189 S.W.2d 678 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “We agree with counsel for Berndt that there is a clear distinction between an action brought for a recount under KRS 122.”
Cox v. Howard, 261 S.W.2d 673 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “280, requiring the ballots to be signed, prevents the officers of the precinct from correcting an oversight and signing them during the recount when it is shown that the ballots were regular in every respect, except for the lack of an official signature.”
Watts v. Fugate, 442 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “2d 689 (1958), involved a primary election and was decided under KRS 122.020, which specifically provides: “No ground of contest by either party shall be filed or made more definite by amendment after the expiration of the time allowed by this section for filing the original…”
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.