Jeff S. Taylor

This case arose from injuries and deaths at a Kentucky candle factory during an EF4 tornado in December 2021, where employee plaintiffs alleged that supervisors prevented them from leaving despite advance warning by blocking exits and threatening termination, leading to claims of false imprisonment, statutory unlawful imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the employer and two supervisors. The circuit court dismissed all claims under the exclusive remedy provision of the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as well as certain false imprisonment claims against one supervisor and one plaintiff, but reversed dismissal of the false imprisonment and statutory claims against the employer and the remaining supervisor, holding that the Act’s exception for intentional torts permitted those claims to proceed while remanding for further proceedings.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved Aubrey Ellis Franklin, a convicted felon on diversion, who was charged under KRS 527.040 after police found a handgun in his backpack during a traffic stop; he pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge the statute's constitutionality. Franklin moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the felon-in-possession law violated the Second Amendment and Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution, both facially and as applied to nonviolent felons, citing Bruen's historical-tradition test. The circuit court denied the motion, and Franklin appealed the final judgment imposing a five-year sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that KRS 527.040 is facially constitutional under binding Kentucky precedent in Frazier, which had conducted the required historical analysis and found the prohibition consistent with the nation's tradition of disarming dangerous persons.

gunscriminal law

This case involved Tristian Long's appeal from a Ballard Circuit Court judgment convicting him of unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree, distribution of obscene matter, and being a second-degree persistent felony offender, resulting in a 17-year prison sentence. The charges arose from Long sending sexually explicit text messages and images to his 13-year-old relative C.H. and her 12-year-old sister A.H. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the trial proceedings. However, it vacated the portion of the judgment imposing jail fees because the circuit court incorrectly calculated the daily rate based on the assumption that Long was held in Ballard County jail rather than McCracken County, where he was actually incarcerated, and remanded for recalculation of the fees under the proper rate schedule.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves multiple consolidated appeals by A.O. from Jefferson Circuit Court orders regarding his involuntary commitment under KRS Chapter 202C after being found incompetent to stand trial on criminal charges including attempted murder. The circuit court had upheld the constitutionality of the commitment statute except for the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard at the initial hearing under KRS 202C.030(3), which it replaced with a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and then ordered A.O.'s ongoing commitment following jury findings. The Court of Appeals, following the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in R.L.P. v. Commonwealth, reversed the lower court's ruling on the burden of proof, held that the statute is constitutional as written, and affirmed the commitment orders and subsequent periodic review orders continuing A.O.'s commitment.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned A.O., who faced criminal charges including attempted murder but was found incompetent to stand trial and unlikely to regain competence, prompting the Commonwealth to seek involuntary commitment under KRS Chapter 202C. The Jefferson Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of most provisions of the chapter but declared the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in KRS 202C.030(3) for the initial hearing unconstitutional and substituted a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, then ordered A.O.'s commitment; it later continued the commitment after periodic review hearings. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and, relying on the Kentucky Supreme Court's intervening decision in R.L.P. v. Commonwealth that the statute is constitutional as written, reversed the circuit court's invalidation of the preponderance standard while affirming the remainder of the orders and the ongoing commitments.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Dwayne Conken appealing the Nicholas Circuit Court's orders that upheld the Nicholas County Fiscal Court's approval of a 2023 subdivision plat submitted by DGS Development while invalidating an earlier 2022 plat approval for the same property. Conken, a neighboring landowner, had challenged both approvals on grounds that the plats violated the county's subdivision regulations adopted under KRS 100.273. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Fiscal Court's 2023 approval complied with statutory requirements for recording minutes of public meetings and that the circuit court properly determined the 2022 regulations were arbitrary. The court reviewed the administrative decisions for arbitrariness under the standard applicable to local planning actions and found no error in affirming the later approval.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Dwayne Conken's challenge to the Nicholas County Fiscal Court's approval of two subdivision plats submitted by DGS Development for property near Conken's farm, which Conken argued violated local subdivision regulations adopted under KRS 100.273. Conken appealed the approvals in two circuit court actions, leading to orders that upheld the 2023 plat while declaring the 2022 plat and related regulatory amendments arbitrary and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed those orders after reviewing the Fiscal Court's administrative decisions for arbitrariness, concluding that the 2023 approval complied with the applicable regulations and that required meeting minutes had been properly recorded and made public under KRS 61.835. The court noted that the Fiscal Court was not required to issue formal findings of fact in this context.

propertyprocedure

Joseph W. Daugherty, an inmate at the Kentucky State Penitentiary, was convicted by a jury of two counts of third-degree assault and being a second-degree persistent felony offender after throwing liquid feces at a licensed practical nurse and a corrections officer during a medication delivery in his cell. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the nurse was not an employee of the detention facility because she worked for a private contractor and that there was insufficient evidence he directly threw feces on the officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of eighteen years' imprisonment. The court reasoned that the nurse qualified as an employee under KRS 508.025(1)(b) since she provided medical services at the facility, and that testimony and video evidence supported the jury's finding that Daugherty threw feces on both victims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a biological mother appealing two family court orders: the denial of her motion to annul a 2020 adoption judgment that terminated her parental rights to her child and the dismissal of her petition seeking visitation with the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders. The court held that the challenge to the adoption was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under KRS 199.540 and that the mother's consent to the adoption was knowing and voluntary, with no due process violation. Regarding visitation, the court reasoned that Kentucky statutes, including KRS 199.520(2) and KRS 199.502, terminate the legal relationship between a biological parent and child upon adoption, precluding any post-adoption visitation rights and rendering an earlier agreed order on visitation void.

family law

In Sally Schilling v. Wesbanco Bank, Inc., the case arose from a prior foreclosure action in which WesBanco obtained a judgment against Schilling for defaulted commercial loans secured by mortgages on her properties, including an award of attorney’s fees with reservation for additional post-judgment fees. After Schilling paid a payoff amount to avert a judicial sale and the foreclosure was dismissed, she filed this new action alleging negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and other claims on the ground that the payoff included excessive attorney’s fees. The Oldham Circuit Court granted summary judgment to WesBanco, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the claims were barred by res judicata because they involved the same parties and issues that were or could have been litigated in the prior foreclosure proceeding where the entitlement to attorney’s fees was addressed.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, Brian Marcum appealed his convictions and sentence from the Clinton Circuit Court for offenses including marijuana cultivation, trafficking in marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, stemming from a police welfare check that led to the discovery of marijuana plants and related items at his residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts and rejecting claims of a directed verdict error or double jeopardy violations, as the offenses of cultivation and trafficking involve distinct elements under Kentucky law. However, the court reversed the portion of the judgment imposing a ten-year sentence enhanced by a second-degree persistent felony offender charge, noting that the jury left the verdict form blank on guilt for that offense and the trial court had dismissed it. The matter was remanded for resentencing consistent with the dismissal of the persistent felony offender charge, while the denial of Marcum's motion for judgment of acquittal was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Eric Triggs's appeal of a January 2025 amended Domestic Violence Order (DVO) from the Kenton Family Court protecting Tanika Desiree Cobb and her five minor children. The original July 2023 DVO was issued after the court found Triggs had committed acts of domestic violence, including hitting Cobb and one child; Triggs later moved to amend the order to facilitate child custody proceedings in Ohio. The family court modified the DVO to permit limited contact via an app for child-related matters but left the protective terms otherwise intact. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that Triggs had not raised his challenges to the underlying findings or the children's inclusion in the DVO at the trial court level, had not timely appealed the original order or prior denials of his CR 60.02 motions, and had not shown an abuse of discretion in the amendment.

family lawprocedure

Shadrach Peeler appealed the Hardin Circuit Court's denial of his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to accept a guilty plea without explaining potential trial defenses such as intoxication, imperfect self-protection, and extreme emotional disturbance. Peeler had pleaded guilty to two counts of murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, tampering with physical evidence, and resisting arrest after a 2019 killing spree that left two people dead and two others injured, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the record showed overwhelming evidence of guilt, including surveillance video and witness testimony, making it unlikely the asserted defenses would have succeeded at trial. The court further reasoned that Peeler failed to demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland standard, as he did not show a reasonable probability he would have proceeded to trial absent the alleged deficiencies, and the plea avoided the risk of a death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the administration of a family trust established in 1987 for the benefit of Conrad Donta, including the sale of real property held in the trust and a claim by Donald Donta for an equitable lien on that property. Donald, originally named as trustee but later replaced, filed an adversary proceeding in circuit court challenging the district court's approval of the property sale and asserting he was owed for expenses incurred on the property. The Boyd Circuit Court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no written contract or special circumstances justifying an equitable lien, especially since Donald had been removed as trustee decades earlier and had not sought prior court approval for the expenses.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over grandparent visitation rights under Kentucky Revised Statutes 405.021, in which Willie Meads appealed a Fayette Circuit Court family division order terminating his and his wife's visitation with their grandson E.S. following an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals struck Meads' pro se appellate brief and dismissed the appeal. The core reasoning was that the brief failed to comply with multiple Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure requirements, such as including an introduction, statement of points and authorities, and proper citations, and that pro se litigants must adhere to these procedural rules just as attorneys do, with noncompliance warranting dismissal under RAP 10(B).

family lawprocedure

Thaddeus Artis appealed the Hardin Circuit Court's denial of his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his 2021 convictions and 20-year sentence for first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, intimidating a participant in the legal process, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Artis claimed he had attempted to file the motion in March 2024 by depositing it in the prison mail system, but it was never received, and the actual filing occurred in October 2024 along with supporting documents. The circuit court ruled the motion untimely under the three-year limit in RCr 11.42(10) and found that equitable tolling did not apply due to lack of diligence and no extraordinary circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prison mailbox rule does not extend to RCr 11.42 collateral attacks and that Artis failed to demonstrate the diligence or circumstances necessary for tolling, as the motion was unverified and mailed late in the limitations period without certified mail or prison logs.

criminal lawprocedure

Gregory Wahl appealed the Garrard Circuit Court's denial of his RCr 11.42 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to address his alleged drug intoxication at trial, including not moving for a competency evaluation or preventing him from testifying. Wahl had been convicted of first-degree assault and being a persistent felony offender, receiving a 45-year sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that counsel was not ineffective because there was no credible evidence that Wahl informed his attorneys of his drug use before or during trial, the attorneys credibly testified they had no suspicion of intoxication until after the jury deliberated, and Wahl failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged deficiencies.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action filed in 2019 by the estate of a nursing home patient against the facility's owners and two treating physicians, alleging medical negligence in the prescription of medication that caused the patient's death. The circuit court stayed the entire case for arbitration based on an agreement signed with the nursing home owners, even though the physicians were not parties to it, and later dismissed the claims against the physicians for lack of prosecution under CR 77.02(2) due to years of inactivity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the arbitration agreement had been waived by the parties' failure to pursue arbitration or comply with its terms, rendering the stay unenforceable as to the physicians and the dismissal erroneous.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved Michael D. Mallard’s appeal from a Henderson Circuit Court order denying his CR 60.02(f) motion to reduce his aggregate consecutive prison sentence from 45 years to 20 years. Mallard had pleaded guilty to multiple offenses across separate cases dating back to 1996, with the most recent 2022 conviction for drug possession and DUI resulting in an additional consecutive term; he argued that KRS 532.110(1)(c) imposed a statutory cap based on the highest class of crime and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimmel v. Commonwealth required relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Kimmel addressed a different statutory conflict involving KRS 533.060(3) and did not apply to Mallard’s situation. Instead, the court relied on Johnson v. Commonwealth to conclude that the aggregate sentencing cap in KRS 532.110(1)(c) does not limit consecutive sentences arising from separate proceedings and prior finalized convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved parents C.B. and W.J. appealing Hardin Family Court orders that found they had abused and neglected their infant child Z.A.J. and older child Y.J.J., resulting in both children being committed to the custody of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court's adjudication and disposition orders. Z.A.J. had been hospitalized with multiple serious injuries including rib fractures, a lacerated liver, subconjunctival hemorrhages, and skull and leg fractures consistent with non-accidental trauma inflicted over multiple dates, while the parents as sole caregivers offered no explanation and tested positive for THC. The court held that the family court's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence from medical testimony and records and were not clearly erroneous under KRS Chapter 620.

family law