Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 216B

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216B.120

Repealed, 2018

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

Catchline at repeal: Judicial appeals -- Bonds -- Costs. History: Repealed 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 143, sec. 18, effective July 14, 2018. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 371, sec. 56, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 512, Part 7, sec. 42, effective July 15, 1994. -- Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 499, sec. 12, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 210, sec. 26, effective July 15, 1988. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 347, sec. 22, effective July 15, 1982. -- Created 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 135, sec. 23, effective July 15, 1980.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Starks v. Kentucky Health Facilities
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Starks v. Kentucky Health Facilities (1984) kyctapp · cites it 2× “The circuit court reviewed the action of the board, in light of KRS 216B.120, and approved. KRS 216B.120 provides: PARTIES TO JUDICIAL REVIEW-LIMITATION OF REVIEW — APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS.”
ACSR, Inc. v. Cabinet for Health Services (2000) kyctapp · cites it 2× “It argues that the accepted general practice in administrative proceedings requires the applicant before an administrative agency to bear the burden of proof. ACSR asserts that KRS 216B.”
Gilbert v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Family Services (2008) kyctapp “” KRS 216B.120(2). A summary of those factual findings illustrates the activity occurring at each of these facilities.”
Gilbert v. COM., CABINET FOR HEALTH (2008) kyctapp “The evidence presented at the show cause hearing does not describe a private office or clinic of a physician.”
Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. D/B/A Baptist Health Paducah v. Mercy Health-Lourdes Hospital, LLC D/B/A Mercy Health-Lo (2024) kyctapp “1984) (citing KRS 216B.120(2) (since repealed)) (holding the proper standard of a CON decision is “whether the findings of fact in issue are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous based upon a review of the record as a whole”).”
Our Lady of the Woods, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Kentucky Health Facilities & Health Services Certificate of Need & Licensur (1982) kyctapp “KRS 216B.120(2). No new or additional evidence may be introduced in the circuit court except as it relates to fraud or misconduct of administrative personnel affecting this order.”
Commission for Health Economics Control in Kentucky v. Medical Consultants Imaging Co. (1992) kyctapp “2d 5 (1985), and KRS 216B.120. The Franklin Circuit Court properly reviewed the Commission’s decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 216B.120(2) — 5 cases
Gilbert v. Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Family Services (2008) kyctapp “” KRS 216B.120(2). A summary of those factual findings illustrates the activity occurring at each of these facilities.”
ACSR, Inc. v. Cabinet for Health Services (2000) kyctapp “It argues that the accepted general practice in administrative proceedings requires the applicant before an administrative agency to bear the burden of proof. ACSR asserts that KRS 216B.”
Gilbert v. COM., CABINET FOR HEALTH (2008) kyctapp “The evidence presented at the show cause hearing does not describe a private office or clinic of a physician.”
Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. D/B/A Baptist Health Paducah v. Mercy Health-Lourdes Hospital, LLC D/B/A Mercy Health-Lo (2024) kyctapp “1984) (citing KRS 216B.120(2) (since repealed)) (holding the proper standard of a CON decision is “whether the findings of fact in issue are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous based upon a review of the record as a whole”).”
Our Lady of the Woods, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Kentucky Health Facilities & Health Services Certificate of Need & Licensur (1982) kyctapp “KRS 216B.120(2). No new or additional evidence may be introduced in the circuit court except as it relates to fraud or misconduct of administrative personnel affecting this order.”
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.