Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 122
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.070 (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Repealed, 1974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: Contest of regular election of officers other than Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, member of General Assembly and certain city officers; how instituted; process; pleadings. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Amended 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 151, sec. 4. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1596a-12.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1943–1974 · leading case: Widick v. Ralston, 197 S.W.2d 261 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Widick v. Ralston, 197 S.W.2d 261 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). · cites it 6× “As stated above, it is appellants’ contention that the original petition stated no cause of action and that its defects may not be cured by an amendment offered after the contest period.”
Hodges v. Hodges, 314 S.W.2d 208 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 3× “The trial court gave as the reason for denying the filing of the amended petitions that they were attempts to set out new and additional causes of action as prohibited by KRS 122.070. The Searcy and Hodges cases have been consolidated, as have the Flowers and Friedli cases.”
Durr v. Washington Cnty., 339 S.W.2d 444 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 4× “070, which provides that the suit must be commenced within 30 days after the day of the election, that the complaint shall state the grounds of contest, and that “no other grounds shall after-wards be relied upon.” In the Gregory case the statutory authority was KRS 122.”
Rives v. Pettit, 513 S.W.2d 475 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “-100, that 2562 was a contest suit under KRS 122.070, that the evidence to be heard in the recount inquiry would be confined to the integrity of the voting machines 12 from the time they were first opened on election day (plus, of course, if the integrity should be established,…”
Johnson v. May, 203 S.W.2d 37 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947). · cites it 2× “In the above-mentioned paragraphs appellants had given the names of some voters and had *298 stated that in each precinct there were a number of voters (ranging from 15 to 35) “whose names are not now known to plaintiffs.”
Bentley v. Wright, 198 S.W.2d 420 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). · cites it 3× “100 KRS requires that a request for a recount of the ballots must be filed within 10 days after the day of election, and that if such request for a recount is included in a petition in a contest proceeding under KRS 122.070, the petition must be filed within the 10 days.”
Simmons v. Taylor, 451 S.W.2d 385 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 10× “KRS 122.070. The trial court dismissed the action based on failure of the appellant plaintiffs to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
Adams v. Helton, 175 S.W.2d 1012 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). · cites it 2× “120 the procedure in a local option election contest is the same as that provided by KRS 122.070 for general elections. The latter section provides in part that: “The petition shall be filed and process issued within thirty days after the day of election; it shall state the…”
Yount v. City of Frankfort, 255 S.W.2d 632 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “The Allen case involves an election contest under KS § 1596a-12 (now KRS 122.070) which provides the time within which various pleadings must be filed and proof taken; We have construed its provisions to be mandatory, unless it affirmatively appears a good excuse for delay…”
Arnett v. Hensley, 425 S.W.2d 546 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “Arnett contends that the complaint was insufficient and should have been dismissed upon his motion for various reasons which we shall discuss seriatim: (a) The contention is made that it was fatal for Hensley to denominate himself as plaintiff and Arnett as defendant in the…”
Keeling v. Coker, 171 S.W.2d 263 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “2554e-13) that contests of Local Option elections shall be conducted in the same manner as contests of general elections of county officers, and the requirements of KRS 122.070 (KS, sec. 1596a-12) that in such contests the contestee “shall file an answer within twenty days after…”
Thieman v. Hancock Etc., 176 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). · cites it 4× “KRS 122.070 prescribes the procedure for the “contest of the election of any state, county, district or city officer, except Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, member of the General Assembly and those city officers as to whom there are other provisions made by law.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.