Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 413
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.270 (2026)

Effect of judgment of no jurisdiction -- Application to administrative

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

agencies.

(1) If an action is commenced in due time and in good faith in any court of this state and the defendants or any of them make defense, and it is adjudged that the court has no jurisdiction of the action, the plaintiff or his representative may, within ninety (90) days from the time of that judgment, commence a new action in the proper court. The time between the commencement of the first and last action shall not be counted in applying any statute of limitation.

(2) As used in this section, "court" means all courts, commissions, and boards which are judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals authorized by the Constitution or statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky or of the United States of America. History: Amended 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 54, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2545.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Dollar Gen. Stores, Ltd. v. Smith, 237 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dollar Gen. Stores, Ltd. v. Smith, 237 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 34× “[1] However, we have not previously decided whether the saving statute applies also where the original forum dismissed the case on grounds of forum non conveniens and the claim was re-brought in another *164 proper venue within the extended time allowed.”
Nelson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Forte, 337 S.W.3d 617 (Ky. 2011). · cites it 7× “The Nelson Circuit Court held that the action was properly before the Board of Claims because of the savings statute, KRS 413.270, and remanded for appropriate action.”
Milby v. Wright, 952 S.W.2d 202 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 5× “39-040(2) nor KRS 413.270 provided additional time in which to file.”
Cherry v. Augustus, 245 S.W.3d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “But this argument ignores the existence of our saving statute, KRS 413.270. KRS 413.270(1) grants a party who mistakenly, but in good faith, filed an action in a Kentucky court, which lacks jurisdiction over the action, ninety days from the date of the judgment dismissing the…”
Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R., 380 U.S. 424 (1965). · cites it 2× “1963, § 60-518 (six months); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.270 (90 days); Slovenko's La.”
St. Luke Hosp., Inc. v. Straub, 354 S.W.3d 529 (Ky. 2011). “070 does not create a private cause of action for alleged violations of the state constitution and our decision to reinstate the judgment of the trial court, we do not need to reach a decision as to: (1) whether a one *542 year statute of limitations bars claims not raised in…”
Blair v. Peabody Coal Co., 909 S.W.2d 337 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to apply the provisions of KRS 413.270 so as to determine both that the applicable one-year statute of limitations was tolled and that his action was timely filed.”
D. & J. LEASING, INC. v. Hercules Galion Prods., Inc., 429 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 6× “The questions here are whether the appellant, which filed its original action in the wrong venue where the statute of limitations ran against it, is entitled to the benefit of the ninety day saving-period afforded by KRS 413.270 or the six months saving-period of KRS 355.”
Jent v. Commonwealth, Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 862 S.W.2d 318 (Ky. 1993). · cites it 5× “2d 377 (1982), which held that the term “action” used in KRS 413.270 did not apply to appeals, but only to the “initiation of a legal action.”
Seymour Charter Buslines, Inc. v. Hopper, 111 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “Kentucky's "saving" statute, KRS 413.270, applies to extend the limitations period in that circumstance.”
Hardin Cnty. v. Wilkerson, 255 S.W.3d 923 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “2007) (interpreting the jurisdiction savings statute, KRS 413.270, as applicable to venue under the premise that the statute should be interpreted broadly to achieve its remedial purpose of saving claims); see also Lemmons v.”
Commonwealth, Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet v. Kentucky Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 972 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “KRS 413.270 provides: (1) If an action is commenced in due time and in good faith in any court of this state and the defendants or any of them make defense, and it is adjudged that the court had no jurisdiction of the action, the plaintiff or his representative may, within…”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.270(1) — 14 cases
Cherry v. Augustus, 245 S.W.3d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). “But this argument ignores the existence of our saving statute, KRS 413.270. KRS 413.270(1) grants a party who mistakenly, but in good faith, filed an action in a Kentucky court, which lacks jurisdiction over the action, ninety days from the date of the judgment dismissing the…”
Dollar Gen. Stores, Ltd. v. Smith, 237 S.W.3d 162 (Ky. 2007). “[1] However, we have not previously decided whether the saving statute applies also where the original forum dismissed the case on grounds of forum non conveniens and the claim was re-brought in another *164 proper venue within the extended time allowed.”
Nelson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Forte, 337 S.W.3d 617 (Ky. 2011). “The Nelson Circuit Court held that the action was properly before the Board of Claims because of the savings statute, KRS 413.270, and remanded for appropriate action.”
Nicely v. PLIVA, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 451 (E.D. Ky. 2016).
Jent v. Commonwealth, Nat. Resources & Env't Prot. Cabinet, 862 S.W.2d 318 (Ky. 1993). “2d 377 (1982), which held that the term “action” used in KRS 413.270 did not apply to appeals, but only to the “initiation of a legal action.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.270(2) — 2 cases
Nelson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Forte, 337 S.W.3d 617 (Ky. 2011). “The Nelson Circuit Court held that the action was properly before the Board of Claims because of the savings statute, KRS 413.270, and remanded for appropriate action.”
Blair v. Peabody Coal Co., 909 S.W.2d 337 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). “Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to apply the provisions of KRS 413.270 so as to determine both that the applicable one-year statute of limitations was tolled and that his action was timely filed.”
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.