Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 123.050 (2026)
Repealed, 1966
✓ 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: Purposes for which candidates may make expenditures -- Amount limited. History: Repealed 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 216, sec. 14. -- Amended 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 28, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 1565b-3, 1565b-13 to 1565b-18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1945–1960 · 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). “KRS 123.050 limits the amount for a county office to $1,000 except in counties "having" a city of any of the first three classes within their boundaries.”
Britton v. Garland, 335 S.W.2d 329 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The maximum lawful campaign expenditure for the office in question, under KRS 123.050, is $500. Within the time specified in KRS 123.”
Peel v. Boyle Cnty., 191 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “08 when KRS 123.050 limits the expenditure to $500 by a person seeking an office other than the ones enumerated therein, that the Corrupt Practices Act was violated, and under KRS 122.”
Reed v. Conway, 223 S.W.2d 180 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “On August 15, Keesee filed a contest suit against Conway on the grounds that he had violated the provisions of KRS 123.050 by (1) spending in excess of $1,000 to secure his nomination, and (2) by corrupting and bribing voters to vote for him.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 123.050(2) — 1 case
Pickard v. Jones, 243 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “KRS 123.050 limits the amount for a county office to $1,000 except in counties "having" a city of any of the first three classes within their boundaries.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 123.050(2)(i) — 1 case
Pickard v. Jones, 243 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “KRS 123.050 limits the amount for a county office to $1,000 except in counties "having" a city of any of the first three classes within their boundaries.”
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.