Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 418.065 (2026)

When court may refuse to declare rights -- Scope of review -- Remand of

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

case by appellate court. The court may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights, duties or other legal relations in any case where a decision under it would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action, or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances. The appellate court in its consideration of the case, shall not be confined to errors alleged or apparent in the record. When, in its opinion, further pleadings or proof is necessary to a final and correct decision of the matters involved, or that should be involved, it shall remand the case for that purpose; or if in its opinion the action is prematurely brought, or where a ruling in the appellate court is not considered necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances, it may direct a dismissal without prejudice in the lower court. Effective: July 1, 1953 History: Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C. sec. 639a-6. -- Created 1922 Ky. Acts ch. 83, sec. 6.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Bowling v. Kentucky Dep't of Corr., 301 S.W.3d 478 (Ky. 2010).
Bowling v. Kentucky Dep't of Corr., 301 S.W.3d 478 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “KRS 418.065 recognizes the broad rights accorded courts in declaratory judgment actions: The court may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights, duties or other legal relations in any case where a decision under it would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which…”
W.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., 388 S.W.3d 108 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 2× “*112 However, KRS 418.065 clearly anticipates that there will be occasions when it will not be best to address the controversy at the time of the petition, and so authorizes the courts to defer consideration until the circumstances are more favorable for a resolution of the…”
Gilland v. Dougherty, 500 S.W.3d 217 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Specifically, KRS 418.065 provides: As explained in W.B.”
Mammoth Med., Inc. v. Bunnell, 265 S.W.3d 205 (Ky. 2008). · cites it 2× “KRS 418.065. Similar discretion can be found in the Federal DJA, 28 U.”
Associated Indus. of Kentucky v. Commonwealth, 912 S.W.2d 947 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 2× “LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY We agree that the trial court correctly declined to address appellant's issue that asserted that the fines and criminal penalties which can be imposed under the legislative and executive codes for failure to properly register, report and/or…”
Berger Fam. Real Est., LLC v. City of Covington, 464 S.W.3d 160 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “065 of the Declaratory Judgment Act “anticipates that there will be occasions when it will not be best to address the controversy at the time of the petition, and so authorizes the courts to defer consideration until the circumstances are more favorable for a resolution of the…”
Otto v. Kosofsky, 476 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “Under KRS 418.065 courts may decline to give declaratory judgments in a number of instances.”
Dravo v. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 267 S.W.2d 95 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “639a-6 (now KRS 418.065) permitted the court to refuse to make a declaration of rights “where a decision under it would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy which gave rise to the action,-or in any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary or proper at…”
Mid-S. Toyota, Ltd. v. Bug's Imports, Inc., 453 S.W.2d 544 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “They point to KRS 418.065 that the court may refuse to declare rights where it would not terminate “the uncertainty or controversy.”
Bank One Kentucky NA v. Woodfield Fin. Consortium LP, 957 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). “The appellees’ argue that a declaration on whether the contract has been *281 breached will not terminate the controversy and, therefore, is not appropriate for declaratory relief.”
Rea v. Gallatin Cnty. Fiscal Court, 422 S.W.2d 134 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “” KRS 418.065. We hold that the intent of the act in question is clear.”
Greer v. Kentucky Health & Geriatric Auth., 467 S.W.2d 340 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “The provisions of KRS 418.045, respecting the right of any person interested in a contract to have a declaratory judgment, relate to a binding contract, not a mere “plan of 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.