 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fin. & Admin. Cabinet v. Beyer, NO. 2004-CA-002598-DG,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that Ky. Rev. Stat. § 138.450(12)(a) and (f)'s differing tax treatment of new and used vehicle sales violated the Equal Protection Clause, because the statute furthered a legitimate state interest in stimulating the used car industry, and the classification was rationally related to that goal.
|
|||||
| Gardner v. Skiba, NO. 2005-CA-000133-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Res judicata required a final judgment on the merits of a prior action. Appellate reversal prevented an earlier judgment from barring the present action. Also, because the earlier judgment was reversed and was treated as though it never existed, it could not have been a basis to assert that there was an improper splitting of causes of action.
|
|||||
| Jago v. Special Needs Home Health Care, NO. 2004-CA-002569-MR AND NO. 2004-CA-002577-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Party alleging that attorney entered into a binding settlement without express authority ought to have been afforded every opportunity to present his case and cross-examine former counsel. A trial court erred in deciding an issue of whether an attorney had authority to enter into a settlement agreement on the basis of affidavits alone.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Brasch-Barry Gen. Contrs., NO. 2004-CA-000730-WC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Workers' Compensation Board properly found substantial evidence did not support a decision that a claimant was 26 percent disabled, as medical testimony did not show his injury met the proper category of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.730(1)(b).
|
|||||
| Reece v. Dixie Warehouse & Cartage Co., NO. 2004-CA-000652-MR, NO. 2004-CA-000682-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a premises liability suit arising from an injured party's fall, a property owner's warnings did not judicially admit its duty to warn, a hazard's open and obvious nature was a jury question, and an apportionment instruction, under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182(1), was supported. The injured party's workers' compensation only offset lost wages.
|
|||||
| White v. Payne, NO. 2004-CA-002515-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local opposition to farm winery operation was not, in and of itself, enough to block issuance of a license pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 243.156. Order directing issuance of license was proper where requirements for farm winery license were met and residents pointed to nothing showing that order to grant license was clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. Schneider, NO. 2004-CA-001704-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 10, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: All defendants to a suit should have been disclosed at trial. One was not permitted to be a party for purposes of motion and discovery, and later strategically conceal its identity at trial. Trial court's order prohibiting identification to jury of clinic which was named party defendant in a medical malpractice case was reversible error.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
