 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Competitive Auto Ramp Servs. v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, NO. 2005-CA-001952-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that a corporation was a successor employer under former Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 341.540 was error because the record was devoid of any evidence of a "connection, negotiation, or transaction" between the corporation and the predecessor company. Absent such evidence, the corporation was not a successor employer.
|
|||||
| Cross v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-001796-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although two-year delay between indictment and trial was presumptively prejudicial, right to speedy trial was not violated where the delay was not occasioned by the Commonwealth's deliberate attempt to delay trial, there was no evidence defendant suffered above normal levels of anxiety, and defendant's ability to mount a defense was not impeded.
|
|||||
| Drake v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-000809-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the smell of ether and ammonia at defendant's residence provided sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the trial did not err in denying his motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| Hood v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-002587-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant owned and operated an unlicensed spa, that she decided whom to hire and fire, and that prostitution activity by two or more prostitutes occurred at the spa, was sufficient to support defendant's conviction under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.040(1), and trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict.
|
|||||
| Knight v. Spurlin, NO. 2005-CA-002128-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a county executive procrastinated in performing his duty to propose a county code, the county's fiscal court violated Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 67.710(2) when it proposed and adopted its own code, and its code was invalid because only a county executive was permitted to propose a code. Order recognizing code as binding was improper.
|
|||||
| Polk v. Greer, NO. 2006-CA-000340-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A statement by appellee's counsel in the opening statement that the evidence would show that appellant was a "two time convicted persistent felon" was improper. Under Ky. R. Evid. 609(a), appellee could not inquire about the nature of appellant's criminal record on cross-examination, so the statement should not have been made in opening statement.
|
|||||
| Radioshack Corp. v. Comsmart, Inc., NO. 2006-CA-000446-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because neither the parol evidence rule nor the parties' contract precluded a franchisee from presenting evidence on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, and because the franchisor was not entitled to a directed verdict on the misrepresentation claim as it related to past events, judgment was properly entered for the franchisee and its president.
|
|||||
| Rankin v. Coffman, NO. 2006-CA-001559-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, April 27, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of custody under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.350 was error based on father's allegations that, inter alia, mother's lifestyle was unstable due to remarriage, divorce, and interim dating, and that it was in children's best interest to modify custody. Father's vague and conclusory allegations did not justify finding of adequate cause.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
