Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 403
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.480 (2026)

Repealed, 2004

✓ 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: Information under oath to be submitted to court -- Continuing duty. History: Repealed 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 133, sec. 46, effective July 13, 2004. -- Created 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 69, sec. 9, effective July 15, 1980.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1993–2010 · leading case: Vinson v. Sorrell, 136 S.W.3d 465 (Ky. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vinson v. Sorrell, 136 S.W.3d 465 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Vinsons filed a Verified Motion for custody in August of 2000 alleging that Pamela was an unfit custodian, but that motion did not identify David as required by KRS 403.480. [1] On January 25, 2001, David was allowed to intervene in the custody action, and on February 27,…”
Karahalios v. Karahalios, 848 S.W.2d 457 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “The appellant first asserts that the circuit court failed to learn of the Tennessee action, and was consequently prevented from performing its statutory duty, as a result of the appellee’s failure to perform her duty under KRS 403.480(3). That statute states that “[e]ach party…”
Kerr v. Osborne, 305 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “She also contended that the petition for custody was statutorily deficient and was never served on her as evidenced by the lack of a receipt for a summons; the agreed order was legally deficient under KRS 403.480 [4] and lacked the required findings of fact, conclusions of law…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 403.480(3) — 1 case
Karahalios v. Karahalios, 848 S.W.2d 457 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993). “The appellant first asserts that the circuit court failed to learn of the Tennessee action, and was consequently prevented from performing its statutory duty, as a result of the appellee’s failure to perform her duty under KRS 403.480(3). That statute states that “[e]ach party…”
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.