LexisNexis
  

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.


   State Courts - Kentucky - May 4, 2007

  
Bear Creek Capital, LLC v. Toebben, Ltd., NO. 2005-CA-000957-MR AND: NO. 2005-CA-001010-MR AND: NO. 2005-CA-001132-MR, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: The Kentucky Private Activity Bond Allocation Committee had no jurisdiction to approve a city's proposed industrial revenue bonds because the notice of the Committee's hearing on the bonds did not comply with Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 424.130(1)(d), so its approval was void and the matter could not be remanded to it because there was nothing to remand.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Block v. Block, NO. 2005-CA-000666-MR, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: Separation agreement provided that if wife cohabitated with unrelated man, court could entertain husband's motion to modify maintenance under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.250. As wife's relationship with unrelated man was a new "financial resource" for her, and other Combs factors weighed in favor of husband, maintenance should have been terminated.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Boone v. Ballinger, NO. 2006-CA-001257-ME AND NO. 2006-CA-001287-ME, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: While an ex-husband did not qualify for de facto custodian status under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.270, because the biological father's conduct might preclude him from displacing the ex-husband altogether, as Kentucky recognized the doctrine of waiver in a child custody dispute, the matter had to be remanded for such a determination.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Goldsmith v. Bennett-Goldsmith, NO. 2006-CA-001680-ME, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: Father failed to carry his Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.213(1) burden of establishing a substantial and continuing change in his circumstances such that reduction in child support was warranted; while the father asserted he no longer had income producing rental properties, he failed to present any evidence as to what had happened to them.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Layton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2004-CA-002309-MR, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: Before considering defendant's request for probation, trial court stated that it intended to follow jury's recommendation of a 10-year prison sentence for engaging in organized crime. As the trial court did not give proper consideration to the subject of probation as mandated by Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 533.010(2), defendant's sentence was vacated.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Square D Co. v. Miller, NO. 2006-CA-001417-WC, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, May 4, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free  

Overview: Board erred in vacating ALJ's determination that technician was not entitled to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.730(1)(c)1 triple multiplier because, although fact that technician returned to same job classification after injury did not resolve whether he retained capacity to perform his job, ALJ clearly looked beyond mere classification of job.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  Copyright© 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.