 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fischer v. Fischer, 2003-SC-000982-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testator's letter to his son evincing his intent to dissolve their partnership under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 362.300(1)(b) was ineffective to do so, as the partnership, which was formed to purchase, lease, and sell a specific parcel of real estate, was for a "particular undertaking," and testator did not manifest an unequivocal intent to dissolve.
|
|||||
| Hart v. Hart, 2004-SC-000505-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decedent did not substantially comply with terms of annuity contract as to how to change his beneficiary; he completed form but put it in his desk for three years, where it was found after he died. He did not do everything that he could have done to effect a change, and his widow thus remained his sole beneficiary.
|
|||||
| Hiatt v. Clark, 2005-SC-000455-MR,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate who had a post-conviction claim pending under Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 for ineffective assistance of trial counsel was entitled to a copy of the entire file kept by the inmate's trial counsel, including items that the trial counsel characterized as work product.
|
|||||
| Hoofnel v. Segal, 2004-SC-0381-DG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for doctors in medical battery case was correct; patient denied giving oral consent to removal of her uterus and ovaries in colon surgery, but she implicitly showed consent to removal. Consent form authorized hysterectomy and other necessary acts, form was presumed valid, and her uterus was large and interfered with colon surgery.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Callihan, 2004-SC-00722-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Modified
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended for 181 days and ordered to enter into a supervision agreement with lawyer assistance program; he violated Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130, 8.3(b), by committing misdemeanor criminal acts, he had a history of substance abuse, misdemeanor charges, and a prior suspension, and he did not seek review of the disciplinary recommendation.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Daniels, 2006-SC-0238-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was automatically suspended pursuant to Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.166(1) as he had pleaded guilty to one count of video voyeurism in the first circuit court and had pleaded guilty to one count of intimidating a participant in the legal process, complicity, in the second circuit court; both crimes were Class D felonies.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. McDaniel, 2006-SC-0230-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered , June 15, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As his prior disciplinary record was important factor, attorney was suspended for two years, to run consecutively with extant suspension, for violating sections of Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130; he lied by telling client that his already-dismissed case was going well. Attorney did not diligently represent client or communicate with disciplinary authority.
|
|||||
| Peak v. Commonwealth, 2003-SC-0244-MR, 2003-SC-0271-MR,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Among other things, second defendant's statement to police was admissible where there was no evidence of police coercion and Commonwealth demonstrated by preponderance of evidence Miranda rights had been waived. Admission of second defendant's unredacted statement was not error, as first defendant had opportunity call second defendant as witness.
|
|||||
| Radford v. Lovelace, 2005-SC-1024-MR,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, June 15, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting retrial after a mistrial had been declared, as a retrial would violate double jeopardy. There was no manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial, as phone calls to three witnesses by appellant's sister had not injured the Commonwealth's right to prepare, investigate, and present its case.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
