(1) When the Attorney General has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, is
engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice declared to be unlawful by
KRS 367.110 to 367.300, or when he believes it to be in the public interest that an
investigation should be made to ascertain whether a person in fact has engaged in, is
engaging in or is about to engage in, any act or practice declared to be unlawful by
KRS 367.110 to 367.300, he may execute in writing and cause to be served upon
any person who is believed to have information, documentary material or physical
evidence relevant to the alleged or suspected violation, an investigative demand
requiring such person to furnish, under oath or otherwise, a report in writing setting
forth the relevant facts and circumstances of which he has knowledge, or to appear
and testify or to produce relevant documentary material or physical evidence for
examination, at such reasonable time and place as may be stated in the investigative
demand, concerning the advertisement, sale or offering for sale of any goods or
services or the conduct of any trade or commerce that is the subject matter of the
investigation. Provided however, that no person who has a place of business in
Kentucky shall be required to appear or present documentary material or physical
evidence outside of the county where he has his principal place of business within
the Commonwealth.
(2) At any time before the return date specified in an investigative demand, or within
twenty (20) days after the demand has been served, whichever period is shorter, a
petition to extend the return date, or to modify or set aside the demand, stating good
cause, may be filed in the Circuit Court where the person served with the demand
resides or has his principal place of business or in the Franklin Circuit Court.
History: Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 14.
Notes of Decisions
Online Merchants Guild v. Daniel Cameron, 995 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.240(1), 367.378. Consistent with this authority, the Attorney General may compel the production of documentation or testimony regarding the subject matter of the investigation through subpoenas and civil investigative demands (“CIDs”).”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hancock v. Pineur, 533 S.W.2d 527 (Ky. 1976).
· cites it 7× “It is bottomed on the premise that an investigative demand authorized by KRS 367.240 must on its face give notice to the recipient “of the charge leveled against him or the claim made against him before he is required to answer.”
Ward v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 7× “2d at 528 : Our determination is limited to whether there is either a statutory or constitutional requirement that a demand authorized by KRS 367.240 recite on its face the reason or grounds for its issuance, and the answer is no.”
Hearing Aid Ass'n of Kentucky, Inc. v. Bullock, 413 F. Supp. 1032 (E.D. Ky. 1976).
“The plaintiffs also allege that the investigative procedure used by the defendants under KRS 367.240 has interfered with the civil rights of the plaintiffs by attempting to force the plaintiffs as witnesses against themselves, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments…”
Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron (E.D. Ky. 2020).
· cites it 2× “2 See KRS § 367.240. And, on the record, it appears the Attorney General acted pursuant to this authority in this instance.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.240(1) — 5 cases
Online Merchants Guild v. Daniel Cameron, 995 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2021).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.240(1), 367.378. Consistent with this authority, the Attorney General may compel the production of documentation or testimony regarding the subject matter of the investigation through subpoenas and civil investigative demands (“CIDs”).”
Ward v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“2d at 528 : Our determination is limited to whether there is either a statutory or constitutional requirement that a demand authorized by KRS 367.240 recite on its face the reason or grounds for its issuance, and the answer is no.”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hancock v. Pineur, 533 S.W.2d 527 (Ky. 1976).
“It is bottomed on the premise that an investigative demand authorized by KRS 367.240 must on its face give notice to the recipient “of the charge leveled against him or the claim made against him before he is required to answer.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.240(2) — 3 cases
Ward v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.2d 426 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“2d at 528 : Our determination is limited to whether there is either a statutory or constitutional requirement that a demand authorized by KRS 367.240 recite on its face the reason or grounds for its issuance, and the answer is no.”
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.