Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 13A

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13A.140

Repealed, 2016

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Administrative regulations presumed valid -- Promulgating administrative body to bear burden of proof in court challenge. History: Repealed 2016 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 36, effective July 15, 2016. -- Created 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 417, sec. 14, effective April 13, 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1989–2013 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hamilton
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Hamilton (2013) ky · cites it 5× “The Court of Appeals, in finding it was reversible error for the Cabinet to be absent from these proceedings, heavily relied upon KRS 13A.140. Under KRS 13A.140, “when an administrative regulation is challenged in the courts it shall be the duty of the promulgating…”
Faust v. Commonwealth (2004) ky · cites it 2× “135. (emphasis added). Although this regulation has since been deleted, 101 KAR 3:050, Section 1(2) was in force at the time of Faust's dismissal, and the Personnel Board notes that pursuant to KRS 13A.”
Keel v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center (1992) ky · cites it 2× “, KRS 13A.140 (shifts burden to an administrative agency to prove the validity of a challenged administrative regulation), and KRS 207.”
Laurel Mountain Resources, LLC ex rel. Miller Bros. Coal, LLC v. Commonwealth, Energy & Environment Cabinet (2012) kyctapp “At issue herein is the validity of 405 KAR 24:030 Section 8(3), which provides: If the cabinet does not designate a petitioned area under subsection (2) of this section, the secretary may direct that any future permits issued for the area contain specific requirements for…”
Motor Vehicle Commission v. Hertz Corp. (1989) kyctapp “When the validity of an administrative regulation is challenged in court, KRS 13A.140 places the burden of proof on the promulgating agency to show: (1) That the administrative body possessed the authority to promulgate the administrative regulation; (2) That the administrative…”
Ward v. Commonwealth (1991) kyctapp · cites it 3× “first contend that sum *590 mary judgment was prematurely granted in the absence of a showing by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (NREPC) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; second, that the trial court erred in failing to impose…”
Jewish Hospital, Inc. v. Baptist Health Care System, Inc. (1995) kyctapp · cites it 3× “(KAR) 20:004E section 5(2); whether KAR 20:004E section 5(2) abrogates constitutional guarantees of due process; and whether the agency has carried the burden of proof as required pursuant to KRS 13A.140. We affirm the trial court on all issues.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 13A.140(1) — 2 cases
Faust v. Commonwealth (2004) ky “135. (emphasis added). Although this regulation has since been deleted, 101 KAR 3:050, Section 1(2) was in force at the time of Faust's dismissal, and the Personnel Board notes that pursuant to KRS 13A.”
Laurel Mountain Resources, LLC ex rel. Miller Bros. Coal, LLC v. Commonwealth, Energy & Environment Cabinet (2012) kyctapp “At issue herein is the validity of 405 KAR 24:030 Section 8(3), which provides: If the cabinet does not designate a petitioned area under subsection (2) of this section, the secretary may direct that any future permits issued for the area contain specific requirements for…”
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.