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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.080 (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Repealed, 1974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: Procedure in contest of election under KRS 122.070; trial; judgment. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Amended 1944 Ky. Acts ch. 39, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1596a-12.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1944–1974 · leading case: Johnson v. May, 211 S.W.2d 135 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. May, 211 S.W.2d 135 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 6× “Their counsel announced that they had no such testimony to offer at that time, but insisted they had the right for seven days to determine whether or not they would come forward with any additional proof.”
Napier v. Noplis, 318 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 4× “However, according to our statute, KRS 122.080(4), the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither…”
Hendrickson v. Coign, 200 S.W.2d 905 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947). “Tbe law applicable to tbe case bas been well settled by tbis Court in many cases construing KRS 122.080 (4), formerly Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes, sec.”
Gross v. Helton, 267 S.W.2d 67 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “KRS 122.080(2) permits the introduction of rebuttal evidence in election contests within seven days after contestee has concluded.”
Wells v. Wallace, 337 S.W.2d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “According to KRS 122.080(4) the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee…”
Rives v. Pettit, 513 S.W.2d 475 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). “It is contended that by receiving the evidence in the recount phase of the case as evidence in the contest phase as well the trial court in effect telescoped the contest into the more limited procedures of a recount, forcing the contest to immediate trial before the pleadings…”
Watts v. Fugate, 442 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “1596a-12 Kentucky Statutes), now KRS 122.080(4), provides that if there has been such irregularity in the conduct of the election “that neither contestant nor contes-tee can be judged to have been fairly elected, the circuit court, or the Court of Appeals, on appeal, may adjudge…”
Smith v. Kincaid, 235 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “oint to more than 234 which showed fraud on their faces; but we must bear in mind that this is an election contest wherein it is charged that an inspection of the whole record discloses such fraud in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee can be judged…”
Franklin v. Helton, 183 S.W.2d 532 (Ky. Ct. App. 1944). “KRS 122.080, in so far as pertinent, provides: “If it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud * * * in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee can be adjudged to have been fairly elected, * * * the Court of Appeals,…”
Mills v. Broughton, 365 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “According to KRS 122.080(4) the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee…”
Howard v. Bentley, 196 S.W.2d 730 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 122.080(2) provides: “The evidence in chief for the contestant shall be completed within thirty days after service of summons; the evidence for the contestee shall be completed within twenty-five days after filing of answer, and evidence for contestant in rebuttal shall be…”
Jones v. Hammons, 357 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 3× “KRS 122.080(2), which sets out in detail the procedure to be followed in election contest suits, provides, in part: “ * * * The evidence in chief for the contestant shall be completed within thirty days after service of summons ⅜ In this case the summons was served on November…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.080(2) — 4 cases
Gross v. Helton, 267 S.W.2d 67 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “KRS 122.080(2) permits the introduction of rebuttal evidence in election contests within seven days after contestee has concluded.”
Howard v. Bentley, 196 S.W.2d 730 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “KRS 122.080(2) provides: “The evidence in chief for the contestant shall be completed within thirty days after service of summons; the evidence for the contestee shall be completed within twenty-five days after filing of answer, and evidence for contestant in rebuttal shall be…”
Jones v. Hammons, 357 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “KRS 122.080(2), which sets out in detail the procedure to be followed in election contest suits, provides, in part: “ * * * The evidence in chief for the contestant shall be completed within thirty days after service of summons ⅜ In this case the summons was served on November…”
Peel v. Boyle Cnty., 191 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 122.080(4) — 5 cases
Napier v. Noplis, 318 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “However, according to our statute, KRS 122.080(4), the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither…”
Wells v. Wallace, 337 S.W.2d 18 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “According to KRS 122.080(4) the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee…”
Watts v. Fugate, 442 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “1596a-12 Kentucky Statutes), now KRS 122.080(4), provides that if there has been such irregularity in the conduct of the election “that neither contestant nor contes-tee can be judged to have been fairly elected, the circuit court, or the Court of Appeals, on appeal, may adjudge…”
Smith v. Kincaid, 235 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “oint to more than 234 which showed fraud on their faces; but we must bear in mind that this is an election contest wherein it is charged that an inspection of the whole record discloses such fraud in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee can be judged…”
Mills v. Broughton, 365 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962). “According to KRS 122.080(4) the courts “may adjudge that there has been no election” only “if it appears from an inspection of the whole record that there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery or violence in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee…”
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.