(1) Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person is using, has
used, or is about to use any method, act or practice declared by KRS 367.170 to be
unlawful, and that proceedings would be in the public interest, he may immediately
move in the name of the Commonwealth in a Circuit Court for a restraining order or
temporary or permanent injunction to prohibit the use of such method, act or
practice. The action may be brought in the Circuit Court of the county in which such
person resides or has his principal place of business or in the Circuit Court of the
county in which the method, act or practice declared by KRS 367.170 to be
unlawful has been committed or is about to be committed; or with consent of the
parties may be brought in the Franklin Circuit Court.
(2) Upon application of the Attorney General, a restraining order shall be granted
whenever it reasonably appears that any person will suffer immediate harm, loss or
injury from a method, act or practice prohibited by KRS 367.170. If the defendant
moves for the dissolution of a restraining order issued under this section, the court
shall hold a hearing within five (5) business days of the date of service of the
defendant's motion to dissolve, unless a delay in hearing the cause is requested by,
or otherwise caused by the defendant. If such a hearing is not held within five (5)
business days, the restraining order will automatically be dissolved.
(3) In order to obtain a temporary or permanent injunction, it shall not be necessary to
allege or prove that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. Further, it shall not be
necessary to allege or prove that irreparable injury, loss or damage will result if the
injunctive relief is denied.
History: Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 9.
Notes of Decisions
Online Merchants Guild v. Daniel Cameron, 995 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2021).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.190(1). Those found to have committed a price-gouging violation face civil monetary penalties and private damages actions.”
Popplewell's Alligator Dock No. 1, Inc. v. Cabinet, 133 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2004).
“3d 48, 55 (1999) (holding that KRS 367.190(3) authorized the Attorney General to seek direct judicial relief and enjoin unfair trade practices without exhausting administrative reme *472 dies, but commenting that except for the statute, direct judicial relief would be…”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Chandler v. Anthem Ins. Companies, 8 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1 This conclusion is not the end of the matter, however, for the Consumer Protection Act, upon which the Attorney General bases his claim, provides for remedies other than damages, such as injunctive relief (KRS 367.190) and civil penalties (KRS 367.”
Corder v. Ford Motor Co., 869 F. Supp. 2d 835 (W.D. Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Those two types of actions are governed by different statutes: KRS § 367.190 applies to actions by the Attorney General for an injunction, while KRS § 367.”
Com. Ex Rel. Beshear v. ABAC Pest Control, 621 S.W.2d 705 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “200 immediately follows KRS 367.190. The latter statute authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief.”
Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc., 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
“Discussing the standard for injunctive relief under that consumer protection statute, Judge Shepherd wrote: “KRS 367.190 authorizes the issuance of injunctive relief upon proof of a violation, without demonstration of irreparable injury, inadequate remedies at law, or other…”
Commonwealth v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc., 36 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
“Discussing the standard for injunctive relief under the statute, Judge Shepherd stated, “KRS 367.190 authorizes the issuance of injunctive relief upon proof of a violation, without demonstration of irreparable injury, inadequate remedies at law, or other common law requirements…”
Com. v. Tap Pharm. Prods., Inc., 36 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
“Discussing the standard for injunctive relief under the statute, Judge Shepherd stated, "KRS 367.190 authorizes the issuance of injunctive relief upon proof of a violation, without demonstration of irreparable injury, inadequate remedies at law, or other common law requirements…”
Commonwealth ex rel. Stephens v. Isaacs, 577 S.W.2d 617 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“170 and KRS 367.190, the Commonwealth was seeking an injunction against appellees to prohibit the use of unfair practices against their tenants in the form of retaliatory evictions.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.190(1) — 1 case
Online Merchants Guild v. Daniel Cameron, 995 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2021).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.190(1). Those found to have committed a price-gouging violation face civil monetary penalties and private damages actions.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.190(3) — 1 case
Popplewell's Alligator Dock No. 1, Inc. v. Cabinet, 133 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2004).
“3d 48, 55 (1999) (holding that KRS 367.190(3) authorized the Attorney General to seek direct judicial relief and enjoin unfair trade practices without exhausting administrative reme *472 dies, but commenting that except for the statute, direct judicial relief would be…”
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.