Ambiguities.
The Kentucky Revised Statutes of 1942 are intended to speak for themselves, and all
sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes of 1942 shall be considered to speak as of the
same date, except that in cases of conflict between two (2) or more sections or of a latent
or patent ambiguity in a section, reference may be had to the Acts of the General
Assembly from which the sections are indicated to have been derived, for the purpose of
applying the rules of construction relating to repeal by implication or for the purpose of
resolving the ambiguity. Like reference may be had to any special acts or charters granted
by the General Assembly prior to the adoption of the present Constitution, for the like
purpose.
Effective: October 1, 1942
History: Created 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, to aid in
construction of revision and to give full effect to the legislative intent in enacting the
revision.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1943–2009 · leading case:
Collins v. Hudson, 48 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2001).
Collins v. Hudson, 48 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 4× “” Another statute, KRS 446.130, provides that the Kentucky Revised Statutes are intended to speak for themselves except “that in cases of conflict between two (2) or more sections, or of a latent or patent ambiguity in a section, reference may be had to the acts of the General…”
Hardaway Mgmt. Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910 (Ky. 1998).
“Second, KRS 446.130 instructs that in construing statutes which contain an apparent conflict, reference may be had to the acts of the General Assembly from which the sections were derived.”
Fid. & Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek, 171 S.W.2d 41 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943).
· cites it 2× “See KRS 446.130. The General Assembly unanimously enacted this volume under the following title: “An Act revising the statute laws of the Commonwealth, enacting the revised statutes as the law of the Commonwealth, repealing all prior statute laws of a general and public nature,…”
Shewmaker v. Commonwealth, 30 S.W.3d 807 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
“KRS 446.130. Also, the legislative intent in such cases requires an examination of available information bearing on the purpose to be accomplished by the legislation in question.”
Thomas v. Spragens, 213 S.W.2d 452 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
· cites it 2× “On the other hand, the Lebanon district insists that if the present statute does not clearly provide for the automatic extension of school district limits with the extension of the city limits, there is a doubt or ambiguity in the law, and under KRS 446.130 we must turn to the…”
Cawood v. Coleman, Mayor, 172 S.W.2d 548 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943).
“They emphasize KRS 446.130, which in substance provides that KRS of 1942, are intended to speak for themselves, and as of the same date, “except that in case of, conflict or ambiguity between two or more sections, resort may be had to the Acts of-the General Assembly from which…”
Burke v. Stephenson, 305 S.W.2d 926 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957).
“Accordingly, reference may be had to legislative history for the purpose of resolving the ambiguity or for the purpose of applying the rules of construction relating to repeal by implication.”
Kolb v. Ruhl's Adm'r, 198 S.W.2d 326 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946).
“The Statute Revision Commission, in preparing the first edition of the Revised Statutes, made the alterations pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Chapter 86, section 5, of the Acts of 1942, now KRS 447.”
Heringer v. Rolf, 287 S.W.2d 149 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).
“The appellant seeks to resort to legislative’ history of the statutes in question, prior to the Revision of 1942, to show that. KRS 63.”
Chambers v. Commonwealth ex rel. Twehues, 723 S.W.2d 868 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
“They rely on portions of KRS 446.130 which provide that “all sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes of 1942 shall be considered to speak as of the same date_” They further reason that if the legislature intended for the abatement statute to “swallow up all future legislation…”
Walker v. Felmont Oil Co., 136 F. Supp. 584 (W.D. Ky. 1955).
“2d 418 ; KRS 446.130. The preamble of an act may also be considered.”
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.