Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 21.070 (2026)
Repealed, 1976
✓ 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: Amount in controversy, how ascertained. History: Repealed 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 67, sec. 14, effective March 23, 1976. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 950-2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1944–2010 · leading case: James v. James, 313 S.W.3d 17 (Ky. 2010).
James v. James, 313 S.W.3d 17 (Ky. 2010). “In Humphrey , the court had dismissed the appeal as the notice "did not show an amount in controversy sufficient to confer jurisdiction on [the] Court," as then required by KRS 21.070 (1959). [3] 324 S.W.2d at 814 .”
Hoy v. Newburg Homes, Inc., 325 S.W.2d 301 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “KRS 21.070. The motion was overruled. Newburg Homes, Inc.”
McLean v. Thurman, 273 S.W.2d 825 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “080, considered together with KRS 21.070 (which has been effective since 1914), appeared to make a monetary valuation of the matter involved in the controversy the criterion for determining: (1) if a party could take an appeal under any circumstances, and (2) if a party must…”
Monsour v. Humphrey, 324 S.W.2d 813 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “An attempted appeal by Marion Monsour from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court was dismissed by order of this Court dated April 27, 1959, on the ground that the judgment when construed in connection with the pleadings did not show an amount in controversy sufficient to…”
Creech v. Jackson, 375 S.W.2d 679 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Appellants, however, asked in their complaint that they be adjudged the joint owners of, and to have their title quieted to, an undivided 7/11 interest in two tracts of land, one containing 500 acres according to the description. In view of the failure of appellants to file a…”
Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Hofgesang, 316 S.W.2d 126 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “060 and KRS 21.070. The appeal is not prosecuted under KRS 21.”
Rutherford v. Modern Bakery, 310 S.W.2d 274 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “-060 is ascertained according to the provisions of KRS 21.070. That section directs that the judgment be construed with the pleadings—not with the evidence.”
Roth v. Stauble, 313 S.W.2d 269 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “The following amendment was added to this judgment: “Motion having been made, under the provisions of KRS 21.070, requesting the court to state in its judgment the actual value in controversy in this action, and the court being sufficiently advised, the judgment heretofore…”
Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Jones, 316 S.W.2d 860 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “While a petition for rehearing was pending, the corporation filed a motion in the trial court for an order to “correct” the judgment by stating therein the amount in controversy, in accordance with KRS 21.070. The trial judge advised the parties that he would overrule the…”
Ward v. Norton, 385 S.W.2d 193 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “KRS 21.070. The alternative is to determine whether the judgment, when construed in connection with the pleadings,- fixes the yalue of (he amount or thing in controversy.”
Coyle v. Capital Eng'g Servs., Inc., 314 S.W.2d 541 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958). “070 affords an appellant the right to have the trial court state in the *543 judgment “the actual value in controversy” when the judgment does not fix the value certainly when construed in connection with the pleadings. Roth v. Stauble, Ky.”
Eversole v. Combs, 287 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “At the outset, appellees have moved that the appeal be dismissed because the judgment does not, when construed in connection with the pleadings, “certainly fix the value of the amount or thing in controversy,” which KRS 21.070 requires to be done upon the request of either party.”
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.