Kentucky Revised Statutes
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 422.120 (2026)
Repealed, effective July 1, 1992
✓ 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: Evidence of genuineness of handwriting -- Comparison. History: Repealed 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 88, secs. 92 and 93, effective July 1, 1992. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 1649. Note: Repeal of this section became effective July 1, 1992, in compliance with 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 324, secs. 30 and 33.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1953–1983 · leading case: McIntosh v. Carter, 578 F. Supp. 96 (W.D. Ky. 1983).
McIntosh v. Carter, 578 F. Supp. 96 (W.D. Ky. 1983). “KRS 422.120; Francis v. Commonwealth, 468 S.”
Belcher v. Somerville, 413 S.W.2d 620 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “These objections were predicated upon the provisions of KRS 422.120, the specific points of objection being that the samples were not qualified in advance, and were not written before the will was written.”
Francis v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.2d 287 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971). “120 which provides: “When, in any civil or criminal action, there is a dispute as to the genuineness of the handwriting of a person, other handwritings of that person may be introduced for the purpose of comparison by witnesses with the writing in dispute.”
Fanelli v. Commonwealth, 418 S.W.2d 740 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “Appellant Fanelli asserts the Commonwealth did not meet the burden of proof required when it introduced the numerous checks, made payable to persons with names identical to those of the appellants, without proving by a handwriting expert or persons familiar with the signatures…”
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “During the course of cross-examination, appellant was asked by the prosecution to write the name “Sophia Stepp” a number of times.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 257 S.W.2d 533 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “skilled expert witnesses was of the weakest class known to the law and would not have been competent but for the enactment of what is now KRS 422.120, which authorizes the introduction of documents for the purpose of comparison.”
Apple v. Commonwealth, 296 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956). “He relies upon KRS 422.120. But that statute applies only to cases in which an effort is made to prove the genuineness of the handwriting of a person by comparison with other handwriting of such person.”
Reffett v. Hughes, 396 S.W.2d 786 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “KRS 422.120 was followed in obtaining the genuine signatures.”
Hagan v. Higgins, 453 S.W.2d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “It is finally contended the trial court érred in refusing to admit in evidence certain letters written by the testator to appellant Hagan.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 422.120(2) — 2 cases
McIntosh v. Carter, 578 F. Supp. 96 (W.D. Ky. 1983). “KRS 422.120; Francis v. Commonwealth, 468 S.”
Hagan v. Higgins, 453 S.W.2d 579 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “It is finally contended the trial court érred in refusing to admit in evidence certain letters written by the testator to appellant Hagan.”
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.