 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. NHC Healthcare, 2005-SC-0836-WC,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial disability award, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.730(1)(c)2, was affirmed based on the claimant's age, education, and extent of injury because there was evidence that the claimant could perform medium duty work. ALJ did not err when he declined to consider post-hearing evidence on the status of the claimant's social security claim.
|
|||||
| Barbour v. Commonwealth, 2004-SC-000917-MR,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though the Commonwealth violated Ky. R. Crim. P. 8.28(5) by failing to show good cause for having defendant remain shackled during his sentencing for attempted rape and kidnapping, the error was harmless since defendant clearly met all the statutory requirements for being a persistent felony offender under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.080.
|
|||||
| Bixler v. Commonwealth, 2004-SC-000215-MR,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, where defendant never invoked his spousal privilege, pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 504(a), he was unable to claim the benefit of his wife's privilege; therefore, the prosecutor's comments about the wife's failure to testify were not in error and did not violate Ky. R. Evid. 511(a).
|
|||||
| Bryant v. Commonwealth, 2005-SC-000194-TG,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss the case because the 180-day period for commencing the trial had expired was properly denied. Although defendant signed the disposition required pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 440.450 it was never received by the Commonwealth's Attorney or the trial court and the 180-day period never commenced.
|
|||||
| Inquiry Comm'n v. Gallion, 2006-SC-0240-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Inquiry Comm'n v. Hammond, 2006-SC-323-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court ordered a temporary suspension of the attorney and ordered disciplinary proceedings to be initiated because, pursuant to Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.165(1)(a) and (b), there were 14 separate complaints from clients asserted and there was probable cause to believe the attorney was misappropriating client funds.
|
|||||
| Inquiry Comm'n v. Melbourne Mills, 2006-SC-0232-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Burlew, 2006-SC-000367-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to a recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 181 days for numerous violations of the rules of professional conduct related to the representation of two clients. The attorney attempted to represent one client in Indiana without admission pro hac vice.
|
|||||
| Ky. Bar Ass'n v. Claypoole, 2006-SC-0242-KB,
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2006, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney violated Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 3.130, 8.1(b) when he failed to inform the Office of Bar Admissions that he had been charged with driving under the influence after taking the bar examination, but before being admitted to practice law within the Commonwealth and was suspended from practicing law for 30 days, with an additional probationary period.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
