Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 99
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420 (2026)

Eminent domain

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever in the opinion of the agency, land or other property, right of way or easement over or through any property is needed by the agency in order to accomplish the purposes of KRS 99.330 to 99.510, it may by resolution authorize the purchase or condemnation in the name of the agency, of the land or other property, or right of way or easement necessary for the purpose, and may proceed to condemn and acquire the property pursuant to the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky. Effective: June 19, 1976 History: Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 62, sec. 85; and ch. 140, sec. 53. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 194, sec. 1. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 152, sec. 85. -- Amended 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 104, sec. 1. -- Amended 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 159, sec. 4. - - Amended 1956 Ky. Acts ch. 215, sec. 9. -- Created 1950 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 11. Legislative Research Commission Note. This section was amended by two 1976 Acts which do not appear to be in conflict and have been compiled together.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1963–1974 · leading case: Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of the City of Maysville, 432 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of the City of Maysville, 432 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 12× “In the course of the opinion on that appeal, some doubt was cast upon the constitutionality of KRS 99.420 as respects the limitation of the right to appeal to this court, but that question was not passed upon as the matter was not before the court.”
Idol v. Knuckles, 383 S.W.2d 910 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 3× “The Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of the City of Mid-dlesboro instituted an action in the Bell Circuit Court to condemn petitioners’ property in accordance with KRS 99.420. By answer the petitioners challenged the right of the Agency to take their property and…”
Dinwiddie v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville, 393 S.W.2d 872 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “This proceeding under KRS 99.420 is unlike our highway condemnation statutes, in that, this proceeding was filed originally in the Jefferson Circuit Court and the circuit court appointed commissioners.”
Tharp v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency, 389 S.W.2d 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “In these cases the interlocutory judgment prescribed by KRS 99.420(9) was not entered until August 13, 1963; there was evidence that the market values in the area had increased between October, 1961, and August, 1963.”
Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville v. Goodwin, 514 S.W.2d 190 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “Urban Renewal urges on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of estoppel against a government agency with the power of condemnation under KRS 99.420 and (2) that the trial court erred in finding that the residential property is not necessary under the…”
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 419 S.W.2d 719 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “KRS 99.420 sets out the procedure to be followed in urban renewal eminent domain proceedings.”
City of Hazard v. Baker, 419 S.W.2d 535 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “The City of Hazard, “acting as Local Public Agency for the City of Hazard Urban Renewal Commission,” brought this action under KRS 99.420 to acquire title to two adjoining parcels of real estate owned by the appellee, Rachael Tye Baker.”
Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville v. Int'l Harvester Co. of Delaware, 455 S.W.2d 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “The Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of Louisville brought suit under KRS 99.420 to condemn a parcel of land owned by International Harvester Company of Delaware, lying on the north side of Walnut Street between 13th Street and 14th Street, in Louisville.”
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 430 S.W.2d 649 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 4× “KRS 99.420(1). They are located in a redevelopment project area.”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Highways v. Hamilton, 495 S.W.2d 187 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). “KRS 99.420(7) also uses the word “may” and allows a discretion.”
Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville v. Fledderman, 419 S.W.2d 741 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Under the special statutes governing condemnation for urban renewal projects, KRS 99.420(7), a jury view is not mandatory but is within the discretion of the court.”
Anderson v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Paducah, 436 S.W.2d 533 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 4× “KRS 99.420(14) provides that an appeal may be taken by either party in interest from the circuit court to the Court of Appeals in the manner, for any of the causes and subject to the rules provided by general laws regarding appeals from circuit courts to the Court of Appeals.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(1) — 1 case
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 430 S.W.2d 649 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “KRS 99.420(1). They are located in a redevelopment project area.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(14) — 3 cases
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of the City of Maysville, 432 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “In the course of the opinion on that appeal, some doubt was cast upon the constitutionality of KRS 99.420 as respects the limitation of the right to appeal to this court, but that question was not passed upon as the matter was not before the court.”
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 430 S.W.2d 649 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “KRS 99.420(1). They are located in a redevelopment project area.”
Anderson v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Paducah, 436 S.W.2d 533 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “KRS 99.420(14) provides that an appeal may be taken by either party in interest from the circuit court to the Court of Appeals in the manner, for any of the causes and subject to the rules provided by general laws regarding appeals from circuit courts to the Court of Appeals.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(4) — 2 cases
Whitesburg Mun. Hous. Comm'n v. Caudill, 369 S.W.2d 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).
Mooser v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency, 426 S.W.2d 429 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(5) — 1 case
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of the City of Maysville, 432 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “In the course of the opinion on that appeal, some doubt was cast upon the constitutionality of KRS 99.420 as respects the limitation of the right to appeal to this court, but that question was not passed upon as the matter was not before the court.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(6) — 3 cases
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 419 S.W.2d 719 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “KRS 99.420 sets out the procedure to be followed in urban renewal eminent domain proceedings.”
Whitesburg Mun. Hous. Comm'n v. Caudill, 369 S.W.2d 124 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).
Mooser v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency, 426 S.W.2d 429 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(7) — 4 cases
Commonwealth, Dep't of Highways v. Hamilton, 495 S.W.2d 187 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). “KRS 99.420(7) also uses the word “may” and allows a discretion.”
Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville v. Fledderman, 419 S.W.2d 741 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “Under the special statutes governing condemnation for urban renewal projects, KRS 99.420(7), a jury view is not mandatory but is within the discretion of the court.”
Fisher v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville, 425 S.W.2d 744 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
Mooser v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency, 426 S.W.2d 429 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 99.420(9) — 7 cases
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of the City of Maysville, 432 S.W.2d 445 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “In the course of the opinion on that appeal, some doubt was cast upon the constitutionality of KRS 99.420 as respects the limitation of the right to appeal to this court, but that question was not passed upon as the matter was not before the court.”
Tharp v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency, 389 S.W.2d 453 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “In these cases the interlocutory judgment prescribed by KRS 99.420(9) was not entered until August 13, 1963; there was evidence that the market values in the area had increased between October, 1961, and August, 1963.”
Idol v. Knuckles, 383 S.W.2d 910 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “The Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of the City of Mid-dlesboro instituted an action in the Bell Circuit Court to condemn petitioners’ property in accordance with KRS 99.420. By answer the petitioners challenged the right of the Agency to take their property and…”
Cartmell v. Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Maysville, 419 S.W.2d 719 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “KRS 99.420 sets out the procedure to be followed in urban renewal eminent domain proceedings.”
Urban Renewal & Cmty. Dev. Agency of Louisville v. Fledderman, 419 S.W.2d 741 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “Under the special statutes governing condemnation for urban renewal projects, KRS 99.420(7), a jury view is not mandatory but is within the discretion of the court.”
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.