 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.D.B. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-0020530-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 1, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was in a child's best interest to terminate his mother's parental rights under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 625.090, as she did not protect him from his abuser or provide him with a safe home, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or education, and there was no expectation of significant improvement in her conduct.
|
|||||
| Catron v. Citizens Union Bank, NO. 2005-CA-001420-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 1, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of bank in action to accelerate and collect on a loan was affirmed. Fact that bank had previously accepted late payments did not constitute waiver of right to accelerate, express terms of agreement applied under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.1-205(4), and waiver of notice clause was not unconscionable.
|
|||||
| Hinshaw v. Hinshaw, NO. 2005-CA-000834-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 1, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order awarding the ex-wife and the ex-husband joint custody of child that was not biologically ex-husband's child was affirmed as, inter alia, DNA test rebutting presumption of paternity did not mean that the ex-husband was without custody rights, and equitable estopped applied as ex-husband relied on the ex-wife's representations to his detriment.
|
|||||
| Massey v. Massey, NO. 2004-CA-002197-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 1, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a family court could not simply impose modification terms upon an open-ended maintenance award, it did not comply with Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.250(1); because the family court made insufficient findings to support the duration of the award, it did not comport with Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.200(2).
|
|||||
| Sebastian-Voor Props., LLC v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, NO. 2005-CA-000609-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 1, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lexington-Fayette County Planning Commission's action in approving further development of area over 30 year period, notwithstanding noncompliance with local planning and zoning regulations, did not equitably estop Commission from prohibiting completion of remaining 59 acres as, inter alia, there as no record of false representation by Commission.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. Henry, NO. 2006-CA-000792-WC,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a worker and a logger had agreed that the worker would be paid for his work if it proved to be satisfactory, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.640(2) provided workers' compensation coverage for the worker's injury during the trial period even though an employment agreement had not been executed and wages had not been fixed.
|
|||||
| United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. ADT Sec. Servs., NO. 2005-CA-001418-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, September 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitation-of-liability clause in fire alarm agreement was not an adhesion contract and was not unconscionable because insureds were not presented with "take-it-or-leave-it" proposal, contract provided that they could pay more in exchange for greater liability, and clause was not one-sided, oppressive, unfairly surprising, vague, or obscure.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
