Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 271
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 271.610 (2026)

Repealed, 1972

✓ 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: Service of process on foreign corporation after withdrawal from state, or in case of unauthorized doing of business in state. History: Repealed 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 274, sec. 165, July 1, 1972. -- Created 1946 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1946.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1951–1975 · leading case: Post v. Am. Cleaning Equip. Corp., 437 S.W.2d 516 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Post v. Am. Cleaning Equip. Corp., 437 S.W.2d 516 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “The appellee counters by urging that its motion to quash the service of summons should have been sustained because it was not doing business in Kentucky within the purview of KRS 271.610(2); additionally, the appellee maintains that it was entitled to a directed verdict anyway,…”
Star Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Red Ash Pocahontas Coal Co., 102 F. Supp. 258 (E.D. Ky. 1951). · cites it 4× “Was the defendant doing business in the State of Kentucky so as to make it amenable to service of process on the Secretary of State of Kentucky under Section 271.610, subsection (2), Kentucky Revised Statutes? 2.”
Gearhart v. WSAZ, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 98 (E.D. Ky. 1957). “The plaintiff instituted this action in the Circuit Court of Boyd County and executed service of process on the defendant by serving the process upon the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Kentucky pursuant to the provisions of KRS 271.”
Pessin v. Keeneland Ass'n, 45 F.R.D. 10 (E.D. Ky. 1968). “KRS 271.610(2); L. C. O’Neil Trucks Pty. Limited v.”
Penker Constr. Co. v. Finley, 485 S.W.2d 244 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “Drott contends that it was merely shipping parts to dealers in Kentucky and was not “doing business in Kentucky” under the provisions of KRS 271.610. Drott had no offices or agents in Kentucky, but it did manufacture merchandise which it placed on the consumer market in Kentucky…”
Brandeis Mach. & Supply Co. v. Matewan Alma Fuel Corp., 147 F. Supp. 821 (E.D. Ky. 1957). · cites it 2× “The single question for determination is whether or not the defendant at the time of service of process was doing business within the State of Kentucky so as to make it amenable to service of process on the Secretary of State of Kentucky under Section 271.610, subsection (2),…”
Irby v. All State Indus., 305 F. Supp. 772 (W.D. Ky. 1969). · cites it 10× “1968), the supplying of at least two jobbers or distributors with a product which later caused an injury was held to be “doing business” under KRS 271.610 (2). Cases from federal courts requiring the application and interpretation of “doing business” under KRS 271.”
Field Enter. Educ. Corp. v. Hopkins, 378 S.W.2d 797 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Process was served on defendant, a foreign corporation, under KRS 271.610 (2). It is contended the corporation was not subject to suit in Kentucky because it was not doing business in this state.”
Bowen v. Eastside Jersey Dairy, 521 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “KRS 271.610(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign corporation that does business in this state without designating a process agent as required by KRS 271.”
Charles Zubik & Sons, Inc. v. Marine Sales & Serv., 300 S.W.2d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “, not having an agent for the service of process upon it within Kentucky, was served constructively in accordance with KRS 271.610(2) by the delivery of a summons to the Secretary of State.”
Etheridge v. Grove Mfg. Co., 287 F. Supp. 437 (W.D. Ky. 1968). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff contends that personal jurisdiction of the defendants exists by reason of the service of process upon each of the defendants pursuant to Kentucky’s “long arm” statute, Section 271.610(2) Kentucky Revised Statutes, which is as follows: “(2) Any foreign corporation that…”
Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Commonwealth, 474 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “Moreover, under Kentucky law, a foreign corporation which does not qualify is deemed to have appointed the Secretary of State as agent for the service of process (KRS 271.610); hence, the policy of protection of the state’s citizens is preserved.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 271.610(2) — 7 cases
Post v. Am. Cleaning Equip. Corp., 437 S.W.2d 516 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “The appellee counters by urging that its motion to quash the service of summons should have been sustained because it was not doing business in Kentucky within the purview of KRS 271.610(2); additionally, the appellee maintains that it was entitled to a directed verdict anyway,…”
Pessin v. Keeneland Ass'n, 45 F.R.D. 10 (E.D. Ky. 1968). “KRS 271.610(2); L. C. O’Neil Trucks Pty. Limited v.”
Irby v. All State Indus., 305 F. Supp. 772 (W.D. Ky. 1969). “1968), the supplying of at least two jobbers or distributors with a product which later caused an injury was held to be “doing business” under KRS 271.610 (2). Cases from federal courts requiring the application and interpretation of “doing business” under KRS 271.”
Bowen v. Eastside Jersey Dairy, 521 S.W.2d 822 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “KRS 271.610(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign corporation that does business in this state without designating a process agent as required by KRS 271.”
Charles Zubik & Sons, Inc. v. Marine Sales & Serv., 300 S.W.2d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “, not having an agent for the service of process upon it within Kentucky, was served constructively in accordance with KRS 271.610(2) by the delivery of a summons to the Secretary of State.”
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.