 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bullock v. Goodwill Coal Co., 2006-SC-0186-WC,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As ALJ did not give university evaluator's report presumptive weight or state reasons for rejecting it under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.315(2) as he was unaware of it, and Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §342.281 would not have permitted him to reconsider the merits in light of report, claimant did not have to petition for reconsideration to preserve error.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. McKenzie, 2005-SC-000257-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The amendment of an indictment, under Ky. R. Crim. P. 6.16, charging third degree burglary at the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, to allege guilt by complicity, did not violate defendant's substantial rights because he was told testimony that he was, at least, an accomplice, would be presented, so he had notice of the Commonwealth's strategy.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. York, 2005-SC-000348-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court order denying defendant's motion to vacate his convictions under Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 was reaffirmed because the trial attorney's failure to call an expert witness to rebut a forensic expert's testimony was not prejudicial as additional expert testimony was not critical given that two local doctors testified in favor of the defense.
|
|||||
| FEI Installation, Inc. v. Williams, 2006-SC-0261-WC,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was awarded temporary total disability benefits as his customary work was outside his work restrictions and he met his burden of proof under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.0011(11)(a). He was awarded future medical benefits under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.020(1) as no evidence indicated that future treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary.
|
|||||
| Howes v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 2007-SC-000086-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A workers' compensation attorney demanding a fee from his clients' doctor with no administrative law judge's approval violated Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130-1.5(a), on fees, Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130-4.1, barring false statements to third persons, Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130-7.09, by not obeying solicitation rules, and Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130-7.05(2), on advertising.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Fletcher, 2006-SC-000936-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer's claims that he did not receive timely notice of non-compliance with CLE requirements of Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.661 because of an unreported address change, that he did not realize the severity of the situation, and that he had recently obtained 13.25 CLE credits, failed to show cause for his non-compliance, and the lawyer was sanctioned.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 2007-SC-000095-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney admitted violating the in-person solicitation provisions of Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130-7.09(1) by representing a father and daughter as to injuries in an accident in which the daughter drove a motor vehicle and the father was a passenger because he had no direct prior professional relationship with them and only a remote family connection.
|
|||||
| Schmidt v. Leppert, NO. 2005-SC-000555-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where driver negligently caused accident in Kentucky that injured insured, as driver's Indiana policy did not include basic reparation benefits (BRB), insured's carrier could sue him directly to recoup BRB it had paid to its insured as driver was not "secured person" under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 304.39-070 of Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act.
|
|||||
| Scholl v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 2004-SC-000183-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, February 22, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarred attorney was denied reinstatement to practice law under Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.510(3) because although he had complied with a prior suspension order, he failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed requisite qualifications under Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 2.300(6) where he failed to provide restitution to former clients in 21 years.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
