Catchline at repeal: Ordinances, how passed -- Amendment -- Reenactment, veto --
Publication.
History: Repealed 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 235, sec. 20, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended
1976 Ky. Acts ch. 184, sec. 1. -- Amended 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 239, sec. 46. --
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat.
secs. 3045, 3059, 3060, 3061, 3114, 3117.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1948–1977 · leading case:
Payne v. Petrie, 419 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
Payne v. Petrie, 419 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 3× “KRS 84.100(1) appears to have no significant bearing on the issues at bar, and appellant does not suggest in what manner he considers .”
Paducah Auto. Trades Ass'n v. City of Paducah, 211 S.W.2d 660 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
· cites it 2× “” The statute to be complied with is KRS 84.100 and reads as follows: “No ordinance shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
Lowe v. City of Bowling Green, 247 S.W.2d 386 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).
“Indeed, KRS 84.100 provides that no ordinance or resolution shall be passed until it has been voted by a majority of the members of each board after having been read therein.”
Rigelwood v. City of Bowling Green, 238 S.W.2d 147 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).
“Appellants urge for reversal that the applicable ordinance is void in that it embraces more than one subject, not expressed in the title, in violation of KRS 84.100. The title of the ordinance is, “An Ordinance Proposing to Annex all of that Territory to the North, East, South…”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 84.100(1): 1 case
Payne v. Petrie, 419 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“KRS 84.100(1) appears to have no significant bearing on the issues at bar, and appellant does not suggest in what manner he considers .”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 84.100(3): 1 case
Payne v. Petrie, 419 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“KRS 84.100(1) appears to have no significant bearing on the issues at bar, and appellant does not suggest in what manner he considers .”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 84.100(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.