Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Ladd v. Ladd
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2010-10-01 · cited 17×
In Ladd v. Ladd, the dispute centered on whether assets owned by Jesse Ladd at his death were part of a revocable living trust he created before marrying Mary Ladd or instead belonged to his probate estate, where Mary could claim a share through her dower rights and renunciation of the will. The McCracken Circuit Court granted declaratory judgment largely in Mary's favor, finding that Jesse had not transferred most assets into the trust and that Mary had not violated the trust's no-contest clause. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings that certain assets remained outside the trust because Jesse retained possession and control and that Mary's request for judicial interpretation did not trigger the no-contest provision, but reversed other portions of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court applied Kentucky trust law principles requiring actual transfer of property into the trust and strictly construed the no-contest clause to permit construction of its terms without breach.
family lawproperty
Taylor v. King
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2010-10-01 · cited 10×
In Taylor v. King, the Estate of Christina Vertz sued a bar and its owner under Kentucky's Dram Shop Act after a patron who had been served large quantities of alcohol caused a fatal car crash. The trial court dismissed the Estate's claim for punitive damages against the bar, relying on prior precedent interpreting the Act as barring such recovery. The appellate court agreed that the statute implicitly prohibits punitive damages but concluded that this limitation violates the jural rights and separation-of-powers provisions of the Kentucky Constitution. The court therefore held the Dram Shop Act unconstitutional to the extent it prevents punitive damages and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
torts & liability
William C. Eriksen, P.S.C. v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2010-09-03 · cited 6×
The case involved a medical services provider, William C. Eriksen, P.S.C., who filed a counterclaim against Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company seeking interest on allegedly late personal injury protection payments under the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act after the insurer sued to recover an overpayment. The Hardin Circuit Court dismissed the counterclaim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Eriksen lacked standing to bring a direct action under the MVRA. The court reasoned that, following the 1998 repeal of the assignment provision and the precedent in Neurodiagnostics, Inc. v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., medical providers are incidental beneficiaries without a direct cause of action against insurers, even when seeking statutory interest penalties rather than benefits assignment. The cross-appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.
procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory
Rollins v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2009-09-04 · cited 8×
In Rollins v. Commonwealth, the defendant pled guilty to multiple arson and related charges in 2000 and was sentenced to ten years, with the judgments noting that the amount of restitution would be determined later. Nearly seven years after sentencing and after the defendant had completed his sentence, the Commonwealth moved to set restitution at over $183,000, which the trial court granted without a full evidentiary hearing or compliance with statutory timelines. Rollins appealed, contending the court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution at that late date. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that KRS 532.032 and 532.033 require the amount of restitution to be set at the time of sentencing and that any post-sentencing restitution must follow the strict procedures of KRS 431.200, including a verified petition within ninety days, which the Commonwealth did not do. The court further determined that the omission in the original judgment was a substantive judicial error rather than a clerical one correctable at a later time.
criminal lawprocedure
Howell v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2009-08-28 · cited 3×
The case involved Arvid Howell, who was indicted for first-degree robbery after an incident at his workplace where he kicked a co-worker while wearing steel-toe shoes during a dispute over stolen items. The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery, and the jury convicted Howell of second-degree assault. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that second-degree assault was not a lesser-included offense under the circumstances because the indictment did not allege use of a dangerous instrument and the statutory elements of the two crimes do not overlap in a way that permits the instruction. The court found the erroneous jury instruction constituted palpable error resulting in manifest injustice, as it allowed conviction on an unindicted charge without proper basis.
criminal lawprocedure
Hamilton v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 2009-08-14 · cited 3×
In Hamilton v. Commonwealth, David Hamilton was convicted by a jury of wanton first-degree assault after his infant son suffered subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhaging, which the Commonwealth attributed to shaken baby syndrome based on expert testimony. The trial court admitted the SBS evidence without holding a Daubert hearing to evaluate its scientific reliability, despite the defendant's pretrial motions and supporting materials questioning the methodology, and it also instructed the jury on second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the failure to conduct the Daubert hearing was error and that the lesser-included instruction was improper because second-degree assault requires intent while the charged offense was based on wanton conduct.
criminal lawprocedure