 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Birch v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-001564-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 17, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if officer improperly seized defendant when he questioned him, the seizure was not so flagrant as to destroy the independent, untainted nature of an outstanding arrest warrant for defendant. Consequently, the pending arrest warrant removed any taint of allegedly illegal seizure, and later search incident to defendant's arrest was proper.
|
|||||
| Calloway v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-000589-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 17, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not unreasonable for the jury to find that defendant touched his niece's vaginal area for the purpose of sexual gratification, and his conviction for first-degree sexual abuse, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 510.110, was affirmed; none of the evidence pointed to an accidental touching.
|
|||||
| D.F. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2004-CA-001868-DG,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 17, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order modifying the amount of restitution that a juvenile was directed to pay was affirmed because Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 610.010(13) granted the juvenile court continuing jurisdiction to review a previously entered restitution order. Further, the order was not untimely as Ky. R. Civ. P. 59.05 did not apply to the entry of the dispositional order.
|
|||||
| Dutton v. McFarland, NO. 2005-CA-000618-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, March 17, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the landlords did not retain possession or control over a parking lot where an injured person fell, they were not liable for the injuries. As recovery allowed by Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.070 did not extend beyond those public safety regulations which were enabled by and closely based on Kentucky statutes, that statute did not apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
