Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 44.020 (2026)

Claims allowed by courts -- Contest

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Within three (3) working days after the first and fifteenth of each month, the sheriff, or any other public official with a claim payable from the State Treasury for duties performed in any court of the Court of Justice, shall make out the claim and have it certified by the judge of the court as allowable for payment, and transmit the list to the Department for Local Government. The claim approved by the judge of the court shall serve as an order of allowance notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary. The Department for Local Government shall keep a separate record of all claims allowed in each county, noting the number and amount of each warrant issued for the payment of the claims. (2) The order of any court authorized by law to approve and allow fee bills, settlements, credits, charges, and other claims against the State Treasury shall not be treated as a judgment, or made conclusive against the state, but shall only be regarded as prima facie evidence of the correctness and legality of the fee bill, settlement, credit, charge, or claim. The Department for Local Government, if it believes the fee bill, settlement, credit, charge, or claim to be fraudulent, erroneous, or illegal, may, upon the advice of the Attorney General, refuse to pay and may contest the claim in the Franklin Circuit Court, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all actions against the Department for Local Government to compel the payment of claims against the State Treasury. Effective: July 15, 2010 History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 117, sec. 32, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 47, sec. 26, effective June 26, 2007. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 69, sec. 15, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 136, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 123, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 13. -- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 62, sec. 51. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. II, sec. 9(1). -- Amended 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 191. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 340a-1, 359.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1992–2010 · leading case: Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway v. Thompson, 300 S.W.3d 152 (Ky. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway v. Thompson, 300 S.W.3d 152 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “040 ("In any action in a court of record of this Commonwealth having general jurisdiction wherein it is made to appear that an actual controversy exists, the plaintiff may ask for a declaration of rights, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding…”

Revenue Cabinet v. Barbour, 836 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The next argument to which we will direct our attention is the Yount appellees’ contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of an award of attorneys fees rendered against the Commonwealth under KRS 44.020. KRS 44.-020(2) as amended in 1990 1 provides the…”

Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 911 S.W.2d 277 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The circuit court, believing that the Franklin Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the action according to KRS 44.020(2), dismissed the motion. Joe and Ray now appeal this dismissal.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 44.020(2) — 2 cases

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway v. Thompson, 300 S.W.3d 152 (Ky. 2010). “040 ("In any action in a court of record of this Commonwealth having general jurisdiction wherein it is made to appear that an actual controversy exists, the plaintiff may ask for a declaration of rights, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding…”

Dunlap v. Commonwealth, 911 S.W.2d 277 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995). “The circuit court, believing that the Franklin Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the action according to KRS 44.020(2), dismissed the motion. Joe and Ray now appeal this dismissal.”

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.