 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abul-Ela v. Ky. Bd. of Med. Licensure, NO. 2004-CA-001783-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of the trial court, upholding the order of the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure denying the doctor's application for a license, was affirmed. The Board complied with the notice and hearing requirements of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.571(8), which prevailed over the hearing requirements of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 13B.
|
|||||
| B.J. v. Commonwealth, NO. 2006-CA-000330-ME,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile's due process rights and protections afforded under Ky. R. Crim. P. 8.28 were violated when the family court adjudicated the juvenile as an habitual truant status offender under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630.020 and placed the juvenile under authority of the state in two proceedings where the juvenile was not present.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Commonwealth, NO. 2005-CA-002369-MR AND NO. 2005-CA-002370-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision denying defendants' request for a ruling that a second trial was barred by double jeopardy, after the trial court declared a mistrial, was affirmed because there was no showing that the prosecutor acted in bad faith and the inadvertent view by the jury of inadmissible evidence was a mistake.
|
|||||
| Bratcher v. Commonwealth, NO. 2004-CA-002154-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for first degree rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 510.040, 510.070, and 510.110 were affirmed because there was sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion based on the victim's testimony that she was forced by defendant to commit sex acts. It was not error to deny an instruction for a lesser included offense.
|
|||||
| Ferry v. Cundiff Steel Erectors, Inc., NO. 2005-CA-002304-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's lawsuit under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.197 was remanded for further proceedings because it was error for the trial court to conclude in a pre-trial order that the employee was precluded from recovering front pay. Employee's back pay award should not have been reduced by the amount of disability pay the employee received from the union.
|
|||||
| Gaskill v. Robbins, NO. 2005-CA-002088-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error for the family court to deny testimony that impeached the father's expert and to consider unsworn testimony when the family court was making a determination of child custody. Family court was not required to consider goodwill when valuing the wife's business, but distinction between personal and enterprise good will was not needed.
|
|||||
| McConnell v. Stivers, NO. 2004-CA-001835-MR AND NO. 2004-CA-001894-MR AND NO. 2004-CA-002302-MR AND NO. 2004-CA-002213-MR,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, December 8, 2006, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence of an intentional trespass by appellant adjacent property owners when the owners were apprised that their improvements would encroach on appellee adjacent owners' property and it was not error to order removal of the improvements. Amount of punitive damages assessed by the jury was not unreasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
