(1) Any member of the police or fire department found guilty by the legislative body of
any charge, as provided by KRS 95.450, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the
county in which the city or urban-county government is located, but the
enforcement of the judgment of the body shall not be suspended pending appeal.
The notice of the appeal shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after the date
the legislative body makes its determination on the charge.
(2) Upon request of the accused, the clerk of the legislative body shall file a certified
copy of the charges and the judgment of that body in the Circuit Court. Upon the
transcript being filed, the case shall be docketed in the Circuit Court. The Circuit
Court review of the case shall be based solely upon the administrative record
created before the legislative body and any new evidence offered by the member
regarding alleged arbitrariness on the part of the legislative body.
(3) If the clerk fails to certify the transcript to the Circuit Court within seven (7) days
after the request is made, the party aggrieved may file an affidavit in the Circuit
Court setting out as fully as possible the charges made, the time of the hearing, and
the judgment of the legislative body, together with a statement that demand for
transcript was made upon the clerk more than five (5) days before the filing of the
affidavit. Upon the filing of the affidavit in the Circuit Court, the case shall be
docketed, and the Circuit Court may compel the filing of the transcript by the clerk
by entering the proper mandatory order, and by fine and imprisonment for
contempt. The appeal shall have precedence over other business, and be determined
speedily.
(4) An appeal will lie from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals as
in other cases.
Effective: July 14, 2022
History: Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 191, sec. 5, effective July 14, 2022. -- Amended
2014 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 113, effective January 1, 2015. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts
ch. 38, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1982. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts
ch. 14, sec. 116, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 165, sec.
2. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 248, sec. 8. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 211,
sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from
Ky. Stat. secs. 3138-1, 3138-5, 3235dd-35, 3351a-2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1955–2012 · leading case:
Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. 1979).
Brady v. Pettit, 586 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. 1979).
· cites it 4× “It is true KRS 95.460 requires that upon appeal to the circuit court the case should be tried de novo by the judge of that court.”
City of Richmond v. Howell, 448 S.W.2d 662 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 4× “He appealed to the circuit court (KRS 95.460), where judgment was entered finding that some of the charges were sufficiently proven and others were not.”
Martin v. City of Glasgow, 882 F. Supp. 2d 903 (W.D. Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “KRS § 95.460(1). The dilemma for Martin is the circuit court’s jurisdiction is not implicated because Duff and Keen do not constitute a legislative body under the statute.”
City of Owensboro v. Noffsinger, 280 S.W.2d 517 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).
“The statute in question, KRS 95.460(2), reads: “Upon request of the accused the clerk of the city legislative body shall file a certified copy of the charges and the judgment of that body in the circuit court.”
Kilburn v. Colwell, 396 S.W.2d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965).
· cites it 2× “KRS 95.460. Kil-burn appeals, contending that (1) the evidence was not enough to support the findings and (2) even if he was guilty of technical violations, discharge from the service was an excessive punishment under the circumstances.”
Harrell v. City of Middlesboro, 287 S.W.2d 614 (Ky. Ct. App. 1956).
“It is true KRS 95.460 requires that upon appeal to the circuit court the case should be fried de novo by the judge of that court.”
Blair v. City of Winchester, 743 S.W.2d 28 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987).
“They do not, however, inform us how Blair did not “strictly” comply with the applicable statute, KRS 95.460. That he included a separate complaint in his petition for appeal does not, we believe, take away from the appeal nor do the ap- *32 pellees explain how the appeal was in…”
Terry v. Williamson, 931 S.W.2d 469 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 13× “The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the appellate procedure set out in KRS 95.460, holding that Terry did not correctly identify the decision from which he was appealing.”
City of Glasgow v. Duncan, 437 S.W.2d 199 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “2d 607 ; therefore, the trial de novo required by KRS 95.460 was properly conducted. Appellant argues that the evidence produced before the trial court did not preponderate against the findings and action of the city.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 95.460(1) — 2 cases
Martin v. City of Glasgow, 882 F. Supp. 2d 903 (W.D. Ky. 2012).
“KRS § 95.460(1). The dilemma for Martin is the circuit court’s jurisdiction is not implicated because Duff and Keen do not constitute a legislative body under the statute.”
Terry v. Williamson, 931 S.W.2d 469 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
“The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the appellate procedure set out in KRS 95.460, holding that Terry did not correctly identify the decision from which he was appealing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 95.460(2) — 2 cases
City of Owensboro v. Noffsinger, 280 S.W.2d 517 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).
“The statute in question, KRS 95.460(2), reads: “Upon request of the accused the clerk of the city legislative body shall file a certified copy of the charges and the judgment of that body in the circuit court.”
Terry v. Williamson, 931 S.W.2d 469 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996).
“The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with the appellate procedure set out in KRS 95.460, holding that Terry did not correctly identify the decision from which he was appealing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 95.460(4) — 1 case
City of Richmond v. Howell, 448 S.W.2d 662 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
“He appealed to the circuit court (KRS 95.460), where judgment was entered finding that some of the charges were sufficiently proven and others were not.”
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.