Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 325.265 (2026)
Repealed, 1990
✓ 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: Persons eligible for CPA examination -- Experience requirements to be met. History: Repealed 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 285, sec. 14, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 117, sec. 6, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 116, sec. 4. -- Created 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 143, sec. 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2017–2017 · leading case: Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017).
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not have been…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the v agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may b_e justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not l have…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not l have been…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 325.265(4) — 4 cases
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the v agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may b_e justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not l have…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not l have been…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “265 and that Mills’s motion to set aside the agreement did not comport with Kentucky administrative regulations Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not have been…”
Landy Mills v. Nally & Hamilton Enter. (Ky. 2017). “Under KRS 325.265, a reopening may be justified through evidence the agreement was procured by fraud, mistake, or newly-discovered evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence.”
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.