 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bissell v. Baumgardner, NO. 2006-CA-002574-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unlike residency requirements to establish home-state jurisdiction under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, there was no minimum time period to establish residency for a domestic violence order (DVO) under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.750(1). As mother resided in Kentucky, trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter DVO.
|
|||||
| Goebel v. Arnett, NO. 2006-CA-001656-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collateral estoppel did not bar a client's claims against an attorney and adoption agency related to termination of the client's parental rights, because the claims were not decided in the client's Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from the termination judgment, but a loss of parental consortium claim was dismissed because it was unrecognized.
|
|||||
| Lafayette Football Boosters, Inc. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-001750-DG,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an anti-smoking ordinance clearly exempted "private organizations," an appellate court erred by adding limitations to this exemption by judicial fiat. Therefore, if defendants met the ordinance's definition of "private organizations," they were exempt from the smoking ban even if they opened doors of their bingo hall to the general public.
|
|||||
| Liggett Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-000359-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tobacco products makers could not set aside an agreement between a competitor and certain states to let the competitor join a settlement between many tobacco products makers and the states or withhold their consent to it, or receive "most favored nation" treatment under the settlement because the makers were not affected by the agreement's terms.
|
|||||
| McMillen v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., NO. 2005-CA-002478-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court properly dismissed an inmate's declaration of rights petition, as his claims that his due process rights were violated by denying him extended discovery and that his rights under the federal HIPAA statute were breached lacked merit and he did not suffer any injury that was abhorrent to the Constitution.
|
|||||
| Morton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-001756,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs inside the car, and defendant was the driver and lone occupant, a police officer had the authority under the Fourth Amendment to search defendants person for drugs. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress cocaine found in defendant's pocket.
|
|||||
| R.V. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-001464-ME AND: NO. 2006-CA-001551-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, August 24, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an indigent mother and father were not afforded counsel at a goal change hearing held before the district court, as well as during other critical stages of the dependency action, an order terminating their parental rights was reversed, as such detrimentally affected the termination proceeding before the circuit court.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
