Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 123.010 (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Repealed, 1974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: Contributions to candidates by corporations prohibited. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 198. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1565b-1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1945–1969 · leading case: Ragan v. Burnett, 305 S.W.2d 759 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).
Ragan v. Burnett, 305 S.W.2d 759 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “However, it is not always necessary to name specific voters when an election is being contested.”
Napier v. Noplis, 318 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “2d 759, 761 , to the effect that it is not always necessary to plead the names of voters where an election is contested upon the ground of violation of the Corrupt Practices Act, KRS 123.010, nor where, as in the Ragan case, “the attack is upon the absentee voting methods…”
Arnett v. Hensley, 425 S.W.2d 546 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “In that state of case, it was held that the failure to name the claimed illegal voters was fatally defective. In Ragan v.”
Hogg v. Howard, 242 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “Practices Act, KRS 123.010 et seq., fraud, mistake, or any of the recognized grounds.”
Borders v. Collingsworth, 251 S.W.2d 463 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “Collingsworth was charged with having violated the Corrupt Practices Act, KRS 123.010 et seq., in that he failed to report part of his pre-election expenses in his pre-election expense statement, and in that votes were purchased by him or by others on his behalf and with his…”
Shackleford v. Barnette, 445 S.W.2d 449 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “020 alleging, in summary, that Shackle-ford had violated the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act (KRS 123.010, 123.-030 to 123.110), and that others in Shackle-ford’s behalf and with his knowledge and consent had violated the provisions of these statutes.”
Wilhoit v. Liles, 189 S.W.2d 851 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “Included in the petition were averments that Wilhoit had violated the Corrupt Practices Act, KRS 123.010 et seq., as KRS 122.060 permits a petition for a recount to be joined with an action to contest an election.”
Payne v. Blanton, 229 S.W.2d 438 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “” The appellant contends that the provision is unconstitutional as offending the several sections of the Constitution establishing the system for equal, fair and honest elections, particularly Section 151. That section requires, “The General Assembly shall provide suitable means…”
Aubrey v. Oak, 190 S.W.2d 27 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “2d 736 , the court held that a citizen and voter could not contest *671 the nomination of a candidate for a county or city office at a primary election on the ground that he had violated the Corrupt Practice Act, KRS 123.”
Bailey v. Turner, 190 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “KRS 123.010 et seq., by Turner and the others, Bailey, Harrington and Preece each filed a contest suit.”
Miniard v. Jones, 189 S.W.2d 862 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “Miniard filed this contest charging that Jones violated the Corrupt Practices Act, KRS, 123.010 et seq., by promising the people he would visit them for the purpose of taking their assessments.”
Reed v. Conway, 223 S.W.2d 180 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “The pertinent part of this section follows: “In the case of primary elections, if any candidate who is a party to the contest proceedings has not violated the provisions of KRS 123.010 or of KRS 123.030 to 123.110, and all candidates who received more votes than he did are also…”
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.