Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 82

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 82.082

Power for public purpose only and not in conflict with Constitution or

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

statutes. (1) A city may exercise any power and perform any function within its boundaries, including the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky, that is in furtherance of a public purpose of the city and not in conflict with a constitutional provision or statute. (2) A power or function is in conflict with a statute if it is expressly prohibited by a statute or there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject embodied in the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Effective: June 27, 2019 History: Amended 2019 Ky. Acts ch. 44, sec. 11, effective June 27, 2019. -- Created 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 239, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1980.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Kelly v. City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly v. City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky (2009) kyed · cites it 29× “The glaring absence of any reference to “administrative regulations” in KRS 82.082 plainly reflects that the legislature did not intend to delegate its preemptive authority to administrative agencies.”
Hyman v. City of Louisville (2001) kywd · cites it 16× “KRS § 82.082 In addition to his constitutional arguments, Dr.”
Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky. (2010) ca6 · cites it 4× “Kentucky’s Home Rule Statute The obvious jumping-off point for our preemption analysis is Ky.Rev.Stat. § 82.082, known as the “Home Rule Statute.”
Kentucky Restaurant Ass'n v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (2016) ky · cites it 5× “See KRS 82.082; and KRS Chapter 83. This is commonly known as “Home Rule.”
Whitehead v. Estate of Ray Bravard (1986) ky · cites it 8× “Movant argues that since the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board had not adopted a specific quota for Newport, under the Kentucky Home Rule Statute, KRS 82.082, the city was authorized to establish the quota, and therefore the city’s ordinance was superior to the order of the Board.”
Peter Garrett Gunsmith, Inc. v. City of Dayton (2002) kyctapp · cites it 4× “KRS 82.082. See also Section 156b of the Kentucky Constitution.”
Dannheiser v. City of Henderson (1999) ky · cites it 6× “The specific issues raised by Dannheiser are whether Sections 3 and 179 of the Kentucky Constitution prohibit the sale of municipal property to private companies for less than fair market value; whether a city can determine that the enhancement of economic development by…”
Lexington Fayette County Food & Beverage Ass'n v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (2004) ky · cites it 2× “060, provides that a city may exercise any power and perform any function within its boundaries that is in furtherance of a public purpose and not in conflict with constitutional or statutory law.”
Commonwealth v. Bishop (2008) ky · cites it 3× “The 1987 Municipal Order is also a valid exercise of Manchester’s authority pursuant to the dictates of KRS 82.082 because it does not conflict with KRS 95.”
Kentucky Licensed Beverage Ass'n v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (2004) ky · cites it 4× “See KRS 82.082; Whitehead v. Estate of Bravard, Ky.”
City of Louisville v. Michael A. Woods, Inc. (1993) kyctapp · cites it 4× “053, which forbids nude or nearly-nude activities on ABC Board licensed premises in the City, is in “conflict” with a “comprehensive scheme” of state regulation, and therefore void and unenforceable pursuant to the Kentucky “home rule” statute, KRS 82.082. The owners, managers,…”
Kentucky Ass'n of Fire Chiefs v. Kentucky Board of Housing, Buildings & Construction (2011) kyctapp · cites it 2× “However, KRS 82.082(1) specifies that a city may only exercise such powers when it is in furtherance of a public purpose and “not in conflict with a constitutional provision or statute”.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 82.082(1) — 17 cases
Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky. (2010) ca6 “Kentucky’s Home Rule Statute The obvious jumping-off point for our preemption analysis is Ky.Rev.Stat. § 82.082, known as the “Home Rule Statute.”
Commonwealth v. Bishop (2008) ky “The 1987 Municipal Order is also a valid exercise of Manchester’s authority pursuant to the dictates of KRS 82.082 because it does not conflict with KRS 95.”
Dannheiser v. City of Henderson (1999) ky “The specific issues raised by Dannheiser are whether Sections 3 and 179 of the Kentucky Constitution prohibit the sale of municipal property to private companies for less than fair market value; whether a city can determine that the enhancement of economic development by…”
Kentucky Ass'n of Fire Chiefs v. Kentucky Board of Housing, Buildings & Construction (2011) kyctapp “However, KRS 82.082(1) specifies that a city may only exercise such powers when it is in furtherance of a public purpose and “not in conflict with a constitutional provision or statute”.”
Historic Licking Riverside Civic Ass'n v. City of Covington (1989) ky
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 82.082(2) — 15 cases
Kentucky Restaurant Ass'n v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (2016) ky “See KRS 82.082; and KRS Chapter 83. This is commonly known as “Home Rule.”
Hyman v. City of Louisville (2001) kywd “KRS § 82.082 In addition to his constitutional arguments, Dr.”
Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas, Ky. (2010) ca6 “Kentucky’s Home Rule Statute The obvious jumping-off point for our preemption analysis is Ky.Rev.Stat. § 82.082, known as the “Home Rule Statute.”
Peter Garrett Gunsmith, Inc. v. City of Dayton (2002) kyctapp “KRS 82.082. See also Section 156b of the Kentucky Constitution.”
Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission v. Schmidt (2001) ky
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.