Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 395
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 395.277 (2026)

Repealed, 1974

✓ 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: When representative or successor may revive action -- Limitation. History: Repealed 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 299, sec. 19. -- Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C. sec. 509.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2021 · leading case: Hardin Cnty. v. Wilkerson, 255 S.W.3d 923 (Ky. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hardin Cnty. v. Wilkerson, 255 S.W.3d 923 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 4× “1968) (strictly construing former KRS 395.277). While it may be a correct statement as to the current status of the law in this state to say that the limitations period may not be enlarged, it is not an accurate assessment of the nature of this case.”
Daniel v. Fourth & Mkt., Inc., 445 S.W.2d 699 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 6× “The principal question in this case is whether the provision of KRS 395.277 that an order reviving an action in the name of the representative or successor of a plaintiff “shall not be made without the consent of the defendant after the expiration of one year from the time the…”
New Farmers Nat'l Bank v. Thomas, 411 S.W.2d 672 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 8× “On March 18, 1965, Thomas moved the court to dismiss the action because of the failure to revive the action pursuant to KRS 395.277 within one year after the death of the plaintiff, Louise Williams.”
Preece v. Adams, 616 S.W.2d 787 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “02, permitting an act to be done after the time permitted, did not apply to KRS 395.277 as it had a specific time limitation.”
Est. of John C. Benton, Jr. by Mary M. Marcum as v. Tim Thomas Currin (Ky. 2021). · cites it 2× “Code § 509 as KRS 395.277. 12 Act of Mar. 28, 1974, ch.”
Thompson v. Kentucky Power Co., 551 S.W.2d 815 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “It appears that two questions are presented to this Court: (1) was the appeal perfected by the Appellants in accordance with Kentucky Revised Statutes and the Kentucky Civil Rules, and; (2) are the Appellants barred from asserting any right to appeal for failure to revive action…”
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.