 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Astro, Inc. v. Envtl. & Pub. Prot. Cabinet, NO. 2006-CA-000872-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 8, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although property owner did not place original concrete waste on land in a flood plain, owner "maintained" an unpermitted waste site for purposes of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 224.40-305, and as owner did nothing to prevent further dumping, defense in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 224.43-020 was not available to owner in environmental action against it.
|
|||||
| Buchanan v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-000923-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 8, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion to vacate judgment of conviction was proper because, inter alia, even if counsel was deficient in failing to explain sentencing scheme, appellant was unable to prove that he would not have pled guilty but for this as he was forewarned by judge that he would receive maximum sentence if he chose probation.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth v. Hill, NO. 2006-CA-000708-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 8, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss a charge of persistent felony offender (PFO) was error because, although the PFO indictment was handed down after the Commonwealth moved to continue the trial on other charges, there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and the delay in bringing the PFO count did not prejudice the defense.
|
|||||
| Gibson v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-001147-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 8, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting Commonwealth's motion and dismissing indictment without prejudice was proper because, under Ky. R. Crim. P. 9.64, attorney for Commonwealth, with court's permission, was allowed to dismiss indictment before swearing jury. Further, court's ability to limit further prosecutions for indictment which was dismissed was curtailed.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Calloway, 2007-SC-000116-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 14, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer received reciprocal discipline of public reprimand under Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.435 because lawyer was censured in Tennessee for misconduct in which she had an affair with her divorce client. Lawyer filed no response to show cause order, and thus failed to show that either of the exceptions to mandate to impose reciprocal discipline applied.
|
|||||
| Georgetown Mun. Water And Sewer Serv. v. Bur-Wal, Inc., NO. 2006-CA-000278-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in awarding reimbursement to developers for installation of utility lines in subdivisions, as pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 96.539, the developers were not customer of the utility as they did not apply for water or sewer services, and thus the developers were not entitled to reimbursement.
|
|||||
| Pennington v. Meadwestvaco Corp., NO. 2006-CA-000916-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as owner did not have duty to insure that work complied with 803 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:412 and 2:303 as owner did not retain sufficient control of subcontractor's employees or painting work to be regarded as employer responsible for safety violations since contractor was responsible to assure compliance with safety regulations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
