certain businesses and employers excluded -- Penalty.
(1) Any person who works on Sunday at his own or at any other occupation or employs
any other person, in labor or other business, whether for profit or amusement, unless
his work or the employment of others is in the course of ordinary household duties,
work of necessity or charity or work required in the maintenance or operation of a
public service or public utility plant or system, shall be fined not less than two
dollars ($2) nor more than fifty dollars ($50). The employment of every person
employed in violation of this subsection shall be deemed a separate offense.
(2) Persons who are members of a religious society which observes as a Sabbath any
other day in the week than Sunday shall not be liable to the penalty prescribed in
subsection (1) of this section, if they observe as a Sabbath one (1) day in each seven
(7).
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to amateur sports, athletic games, or
operation of grocery stores whose principal business is the sale of groceries and
related food items, drug stores whose principal business is the sale of drugs and
related drug items, gift shops, souvenir shops, fishing tackle shops and bait shops,
moving picture shows, chautauquas, filling stations, or opera.
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to employers using continuous work
scheduling provided that such scheduling permits at least one (1) day of rest each
calendar week for each employee.
Effective: June 17, 1978
History: Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 250, sec. 1, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended
1972 Ky. Acts ch. 18, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective
October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 1290a-7, 1290a-11, 1321, 1323, 1369, 1979.
Notes of Decisions
City of Ashland v. Heck's, Inc., 407 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 6× “The core question in this case is whether the Sunday closing law, KRS 436.160, can be enforced against a department store, or so-called "discount house," while other establishments variously denominated as "pharmacies" or "drug stores," "groceries," "supermarkets" and "car…”
Walters v. Bindner, 435 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 7× “The sole question to be determined by this appeal is the constitutionality of subsection (5) of KRS 436.160. Appellant’s attack is based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Section 1 of the Constitu *466 tion of…”
Boyle v. Campbell, 450 S.W.2d 265 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 5× “This suit involves the validity of an ordinance of the City of Bowling Green, enacted December 5, 1968, which was designed to implement the Sunday Closing Law, KRS 436.160. The action was brought by appellees, engaged in the grocery and drugstore business, against appellants,…”
Commonwealth v. Do, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 519 (Ky. 1984).
· cites it 2× “2d 265, 268 (1970), in which a Bowling Green Sunday liquor closing law was invalidated as contrary to KRS 436.160 because the subject matter was fully covered by the state statute which expressed a state-wide public policy and by its terms indicated a paramount state concern on…”
Arlan's Dep't Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, 369 S.W.2d 9 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).
· cites it 2× “On a previous appeal of this case we reversed a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court holding the Sunday closing law, KRS 436.160, unconstitutional. The particular grounds on which the validity of the law had been successfully challenged in the circuit court are discussed in…”
Gibson Prods. Co. of Bowling Green, Ky. v. Lowe, 440 S.W.2d 793 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 8× “Alleging various grounds of unconstitutionality of the Kentucky Sunday Closing Law, KRS 436.160, Gibson Products Company of Bowling Green, Ky.”
Commonwealth v. Arlan's Dep't Store of Louisville, 357 S.W.2d 708 (Ky. Ct. App. 1962).
· cites it 2× “On warrants charging violations of the Kentucky “Sunday Closing Law,” KRS 436.160, the owners of three retail stores in Louisville were tried in the quarterly court, found guilty, and fined $20 each.”
Commonwealth v. Rink's Dep't Stores, Inc., 444 S.W.2d 544 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “One of the indictments against each defendant was for working on Sunday, and the other for employing others to work on Sunday, in alleged violation of KRS 436.160. The circuit court dismissed the indictments on the ground that the statute, in its exemption of “work of…”
Hall v. Childress, 420 S.W.2d 398 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“Appellants now contend that the court should have directed a verdict for them because the will shows upon its face that it was executed on Sunday in violation of KRS 436.160(1), the Sunday closing law; that the will was not witnessed by two credible witnesses; that an admonition…”
Commonwealth v. Southerland, 601 S.W.2d 908 (Ky. 1980).
“It is our opinion that in enacting subsection (4) of KRS 436.160 (Chapter 250, Sec. 1, Acts of 1978) the General Assembly intended the expression “continuous work scheduling” to mean every day rather than every hour, and that an employer who routinely operates his business for a…”
Commonwealth v. Rink's Dep't Stores, Inc., 453 S.W.2d 607 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“These consolidated appeals involve a large number of indictments against the two appellees for violation of the Sunday Closing Law (KRS 436.160), which were dismissed by the circuit court.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.160(1) — 4 cases
City of Ashland v. Heck's, Inc., 407 S.W.2d 421 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966).
“The core question in this case is whether the Sunday closing law, KRS 436.160, can be enforced against a department store, or so-called "discount house," while other establishments variously denominated as "pharmacies" or "drug stores," "groceries," "supermarkets" and "car…”
Arlan's Dep't Store of Louisville v. Commonwealth, 369 S.W.2d 9 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).
“On a previous appeal of this case we reversed a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court holding the Sunday closing law, KRS 436.160, unconstitutional. The particular grounds on which the validity of the law had been successfully challenged in the circuit court are discussed in…”
Hall v. Childress, 420 S.W.2d 398 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“Appellants now contend that the court should have directed a verdict for them because the will shows upon its face that it was executed on Sunday in violation of KRS 436.160(1), the Sunday closing law; that the will was not witnessed by two credible witnesses; that an admonition…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.160(5) — 1 case
Walters v. Bindner, 435 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
“The sole question to be determined by this appeal is the constitutionality of subsection (5) of KRS 436.160. Appellant’s attack is based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Section 1 of the Constitu *466 tion of…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 436.160(6) — 1 case
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.