Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 29.290 (2026)

Repealed, 1978

✓ 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: Number of peremptory challenges in civil cases. History: Repealed 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 491, effective January 2, 1978. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2258.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1951–1979 · leading case: Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 590 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 590 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. 1979). · cites it 2× “KRS 29.290, in effect at the time of this trial, allowed additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants or multiple plaintiffs only if their interests were antagonistic.”
MacKey v. Greenview Hosp., Inc., 587 S.W.2d 249 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “Multiple defendants are entitled to additional peremptory challenges under KRS 29.290 if their interests are antagonistic.”
Roberts v. Taylor, 339 S.W.2d 653 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The three appellants join in making the contention that the court erred in not sustaining their motions that Marler as one defendant, and the two Roberts brothers as a set of defendants, each be allowed three peremptory challenges to jurors.”
Williams v. Whitaker, 293 S.W.2d 627 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 2× “03 precludes a party from raising his objection for the first time after a jury has returned a verdict unfavorable to him, a result which is in keeping with the mandate of CR 1, which requires that the Rules be construed so as to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive…”
Penker Constr. Co. v. Finley, 485 S.W.2d 244 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “The trial court permitted each of the four appellants only two peremptory -challenges because there were only twenty-six jurors present and available for trial duty.”
Townsend v. Stamper, 398 S.W.2d 45 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “At the time of the motion Paul Stamper had pending a cross-claim against appellants for damages allegedly sustained in the accident, and appellants had a claim against Paul Stamper for indemnity or contribution, alternatively.”
Dist. Union Local 227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Am. v. Fleischaker, 384 S.W.2d 68 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “2d 653 and case cited therein. The trial court found that the interests of these defendants were not antagonistic.”
R. E. Gaddie, Inc. v. Evans, 394 S.W.2d 118 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “This error was prejudicial to the appellants since the jury could have conceivably- found the injuries of Evans and Page were due solely to the negligence of Hickerson and Crone. The trial court permitted each plaintiff and each set of defendants having alleged antagonistic…”
Halleron v. Carrithers Creamery, 239 S.W.2d 92 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “270 dealing with the selection of the jury to try civil cases provides: “Before either party shall be required to strike, those on the list may be challenged for cause, * * KRS 29.290 provides: “Each party litigant in civil actions shall have the right of peremptory challenge to…”
Clark v. Lucky Foods, 472 S.W.2d 251 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “He says that he was denied three peremptory challenges given him by KRS 29.290. The appellant has provided this court with only a partial record.”
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.