Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 45A
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 45A.280 (2026)

Presumption of correctness

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The decision of any official, board, agent, or other person appointed by the Commonwealth concerning any controversy arising under, or in connection with, the solicitation or award of a contract, shall be entitled to a presumption of correctness and shall not be disturbed unless the decision was procured by fraud or the findings of fact by such official, board, agent or other person do not support the decision. Effective: January 1, 1979 History: Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 110, sec. 56, effective January 1, 1979.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Pendleton Bro's Vending v. Commonwealth Fin. & Admin. Cabinet, 758 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pendleton Bro's Vending v. Commonwealth Fin. & Admin. Cabinet, 758 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1988). · cites it 4× “Indeed, the statute provides a "presumption of correctness," KRS 45A.280, and states the finding of the public officials carrying out the code "shall not be disturbed unless the decision was procured by fraud or the findings of fact by such official .”
Commonwealth v. Yamaha Motor Mfg. Corp. of Am., 237 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 2× “In pertinent part, KRS 45A.280 states: The decision of any official, board, agent, or other person appointed by the Commonwealth concerning any controversy arising under, or in connection with, the solicitation or award of a contract, shall be entitled to a presumption of…”
Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Rudolph, 184 S.W.3d 68 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). “” KRS 45A.280. In Pendleton Bros., Kentucky’s highest court determined that the KMPC provided “access not previously available to challenge and investigate the propriety of government purchasing contracts.”
Kentucky Spirit Health Plan, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Fin. & Admin. Cabinet, 462 S.W.3d 723 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). “In further support of a proposed deferential standard of review, the Commonwealth cites to KRS 45A.280, part of Kentucky’s Model Procurement Code, which states, [t]he decision of any official, board, agent, or other person appointed by the Commonwealth concerning any controversy…”
Laurel Constr. Co. v. Paintsville Util. Comm'n, 336 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). “KRS 45A.280. Importantly, however, the provisions of the KMPC only apply to a local governmental agency if the agency in question chooses to adopt them.”
Molina Healthcare of Kentucky, Inc. v. Anthem Kentucky Managed Care Plan, Inc., No. 2021 CA 000806 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2022). · cites it 4× “-19- KRS 45A.280 (emphasis added). We presume that “officials are honest, have performed with integrity, and have carried out their statutory duties to the best of their ability as required by law.”
Cleaning by Regina & Assocs., LLC v. Fin. & Admin. Cabinet, No. 2025-CA-0117 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2026). · cites it 2× “It also argues purchasing officers’ decisions are entitled to a presumption of correctness, citing KRS 45A.280, which provides: The decision of any official, board, agent, or other person appointed by the Commonwealth concerning any controversy arising under, or in connection…”
Interactive Educ. Concepts, Inc. v. Kentucky Fin. & Admin. Cabinet, No. 2023 CA 001151 (Ky. Ct. App. July 11, 2024). “KRS 45A.280. We presume that “officials are honest, have performed with integrity, and have carried out their statutory duties to the best of their ability as required by law.”
Cmty. Servs. Proj., Inc. v. Bawac Cleaning Servs., Inc., 226 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “5 Under KRS 45A.280, The decision of any official, board, agent, or other person appointed by the Commonwealth concerning any controversy arising under, or in connection with, the solicitation or award of a contract, shall be entitled to a presumption of correctness and shall…”
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.