Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shannon Straub was arrested by a police officer, who took her to a hospital emergency department for examination. After Straub became combative, hospital personnel physically restrained Straub, gowned her, applied restraints, drew blood, and extracted a urine sample. After suing unsuccessfully in federal court, Straub brought an action in the state trial court against Defendants, the emergency room doctor, the hospital, its employees, the police officer, and the city. In her complaint, Straub alleged that Defendants violated her rights under the Kentucky Constitution and asserted various common law tort claims. The trial court dismissed before trial Straub's claims that the hospital defendants deprived Straub of her due process interests under the Kentucky Constitution. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict for all Defendants. The court of appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether an individual can bring a civil action for money damages under Ky. Rev. Stat. 446.070 on the basis of an alleged violation of a provision of the Kentucky Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that section 446.070 does not provide money damages for alleged violations of the state Constitution. View "St. Luke Hosp. v. Straub" on Justia Law

In this dissenters' rights action, Shareholder in a closely held corporation withdrew from Company, after which Company tendered to Shareholder $703 per share, equaling $168,840. Shareholder claimed that the fair value of her shares was three times as much. Company sought an appraisal, and the Master Commissioner valued Brown's interest at $353,633. The trial court adopted the Commissioner's report, and both parties appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of the fair value of Shareholder's shares without reference to Company's net asset value and without any discount for lack of marketability. At issue on appeal was what constituted "fair value" under Subtitle 13 of Kentucky's Business Corporation Act. The Supreme Court agreed that the fair value standard applied in this case was erroneous but on partially different grounds, holding (1) "fair value" is the shareholder's proportionate interest in the value of the company as a whole; (2) any valuation recognized in the business appraisal field, including the net asset method employed in this case, can be appropriate in valuing a given business; and (3) when valuing dissenter's shares, the shareholder-level marketability discount is rejected. View "Shawnee Telecom Res., Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant Sean Noakes was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant was not entitled to a complete acquittal on the murder charge, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the language of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 504.020(2) in its insanity instruction; (3) because Appellant tendered the first-degree manslaughter instruction based on extreme emotional disturbance, Appellant was barred from arguing it as a basis on this appeal to reverse his conviction; and (4) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct throughout the trial. View "Noakes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were awarded joint custody of their two children by the family court. The original divorce decree provided that if either party relocated to a different country or state, the parties would move for an order of modification. The children resided primarily with Mother. When Mother sought to relocate and filed a motion to modify the parents' parenting time, the family court judge ruled that the decree would be modified so the children would live primarily with Father. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the family court's order failed to reflect any consideration of the factors set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 403(2) relating to custody determinations. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed with respect to the inadequacy of the order because of its failure to include written findings in support of its custody determination; (2) concluded that adequate findings were made from the family court bench; but (3) further remanded with specific directions for the entry of a new order that complies with the Court's recent decision in Anderson v. Johnson, which requires that trial court opinions affecting child custody state the court's findings in support of its decision in writing. View "Keifer v. Keifer " on Justia Law

Appellant Jeremy Lawton was convicted of escape in the second degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was (1) whether Appellant was entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of second-degree escape, (2) whether the instruction for second-degree escape was flawed and constituted palpable error, and (3) whether the evidence presented supported an instruction for third-degree escape. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals on the issues of the motion for directed verdict and the instruction for third-degree escape, but (2) reversed Appellant's conviction for second-degree escape because an essential element was missing from the jury instruction for second-degree escape such that it actually established a different, uncharged crime, and therefore, the instruction constituted palpable error. Remanded for a new trial. View "Lawton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Charles Rawlings suffered injuries as he was rolling straps beside his tractor-trailer while it was being unloaded. Thirteen months after the accident, Rawlings filed an action against Defendants, his employer and the companies involved in loading and unloading the trailer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the action based on the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Ky. Rev. Stat. 413.140(1)(a). The court of appeals reversed, applying the two-year statute of limitations in the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. At issue on appeal was whether Rawlings was in fact unloading his truck at the time of the accident, which would determine whether the one- or two-year statute of limitations applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Rawlings's activity in releasing the straps and rolling them qualified him as a participant in the unloading process; and (2) therefore, the trial court correctly applied the one-year personal injury statute of limitations found in section 413.140(1)(a). Remanded. View "Interlock Indus., Inc. v. Rawlings" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christopher Chavies of manufacturing methamphetamine, receipt of stolen property, and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. Chavies was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld Chavies's convictions and sentence, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Chavies's motions to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle; (2) the trial court did not err by denying a directed verdict for the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of Chavies's amended and dismissed charges in the penalty phase of the trial, but the erroneous introduction of the charges did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceeding and therefore did not rise to the level of palpable error. View "Chavies v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed a motion to hold Renee Ivy in contempt after Ivy fell behind in her child support payments. At the hearing on the motion, Ivy presented evidence that her sole source of income was a federal benefit under the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI). The trial court reduced Ivy's support obligation and held her in contempt for having failed to pay the past due amount. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the contempt finding and the order to pay even reduced child support could not stand because evidence showed Ivy did not have the ability to pay. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals' decision to the extent that it suggested that a SSI recipient-parent's present inability to pay precludes even the assessment of child support; (2) vacated the existing order and remanded for the family court to determine if the guidelines-based amount would be unjust or inappropriate pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.211(2); and (3) affirmed the holding that a contempt finding was inappropriate here where there was essentially uncontroverted evidence that Ivy's failure to provide child support stemmed only from her inability to do so. View "Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. v. Ivy" on Justia Law

Appellant Peter Bard was charged with murder but was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. Appellant was involuntarily institutionalized for treatment for a total of 1,449 days while he was charged. After he had regained competency, Appellant was found guilty but mentally ill of first-degree manslaughter. The circuit court imposed a twenty-year sentence after addressing Appellant's presentencing custody credit, which was calculated at 3,086 days. Six years later, Appellant was released from custody but reincarcerated after the Department of Corrections (Department) discovered the alleged error in the calculation of Appellant's custody credit and concluded that Appellant should not have been discharged. The circuit court judge then approved and signed an amended time credit sheet prepared by the Department that reduced Appellant's presentencing custody credit to 1,449 days. Appellant filed a motion requesting that the trial court deem the judgment against him satisfied. The court denied the motion, finding that the Department had the authority to modify Appellant's presentencing custody credit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department lacked the authority to modify the amount of presentencing custody credit awarded to Appellant in the trial court's sentence because the alleged error in this case was judicial. View "Bard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This case arose from a consolidated appeal. In the underlying cases, the respective property owners failed to satisfy their debt obligations to professional lending institutions, which precipitated the foreclosure proceedings. In both cases, the professional lenders asserted that their respective mortgages were superior to the general tax liens filed pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 134.420(2). The circuit court entered a judgment granting the professional lenders' liens priority over the other liens. The court of appeals determined that the circuit court had erred in reordering the priorities and reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) the prior-recorded section 134.420(2) tax liens enjoyed priority pursuant to the long established first-to-file doctrine; and (2) the doctrine of equitable subrogation does not act to relieve a professional lender of a negligent title examination. View "Wells Fargo Bank v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law