Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with third-degree burglary, first-degree criminal mischief, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and being a persistent felony offender. Defendant requested that he represent himself in the jury trial. The trial court appointed standby counsel for Defendant despite his objection. At trial, the court restricted the range of Defendant's self-representation by barring him from all bench conference and allowed only standby counsel to participate. After the trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment as a persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's restriction of standby counsel at bench conferences in lieu of Defendant himself or hybrid counsel violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights by leaving Defendant unrepresented at these critical stages in the trial proceeding. View "Allen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Ky. Rev. Stat. 386.180 mandated that testamentary trustees make a choice of compensation between either an annual fee or a fee at the termination of the trust. Plaintiffs were the beneficiaries of testamentary trusts managed by Trustees. The Caperton Trust, managed by PNC Bank, operated under a termination-fee compensation option, and the Jarvis Trusts, managed by National City, operated under an annual-fee option. After the General Assembly repealed section 386.180 in 2008, the Trustees brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination of whether the repeal of the statute affected their compensation, where the two trusts at issue were in existence for many years before the statute was repealed. The trial court granted the Trustees' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the repeal of section 386.180 eliminated all restrictions on the calculation of trustee fees. Plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the repeal of section 386.180 was complete and unlimited, and therefore, trustees of testamentary trusts could collect reasonable fees on trusts that predated the repeal of the statute. View "Jarvis v. Nat'l City" on Justia Law

Appellants, several individuals, contended that a Robertson County passway was a private drive, and Appellees, Robertson County, the County Fiscal Court, and an individual (collectively, Fiscal Court), argued that the passway was a part of the formal county road system of the County. Appellant asked the Fiscal Court to acknowledge there had never been a formal adoption of the passway into the official county road system, but the Fiscal Court declined. Appellants subsequently filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that the passway was not a lawfully adopted county road. The trial court granted Appellants' motion for summary judgment. The Fiscal Court appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by treating the case as an original action pursuant to the declaratory judgment statute instead of an appeal from an action of the County Fiscal Court. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Appellants' action could be brought in the circuit court only as an appeal from the decision of the County Fiscal Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because no appealable event occurred under the facts of this case, Appellants properly invoked the declaratory judgment process to challenge the legal status of the passway. View "Whitley v. Robertson County" on Justia Law

Under Ky. Rev. Stat. 161.011(8), reductions within a job classification must be made based on seniority. Pamela Meyer had been employed for several years at the Clark Elementary School as a coordinator for the Family Resource Youth Service Center (FRYSC). When a new elementary school was opened in 2007, two older elementary schools were closed, including Clark Elementary. When positions were reassigned, Meyer was placed at the new school as a FRYSC clerk, rather than a FRYSC coordinator, with an accompanying reduction in salary. Meyer subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that her statutory rights under section 161.011(8) had been violated because her transfer was the result of an improperly conducted reduction in force. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Meyer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a reduction in force under section 161.011(8) requires a reduction in the total number of employees, based on a sound business reason; and (2) in this case, there was no reduction in force, and therefore, section 161.011(8) did not apply to Meyer. View "Webb v. Meyer " on Justia Law

Loretta Glover filed a domestic violence petition alleging that Phillip Sitar had sexually abused Glover's daughter. The trial court subsequently entered emergency protection and domestic violence orders (EPO and DVO) restraining Sitar from having any contact with Glover and her daughter. More than sixty days after entry of the DVO, Sitar filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 60.02(e) motion asking that the order be declared void for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the EPO and DVO. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed without addressing the merits of the issues raised by Sitar, holding that Sitar failed to timely file an appeal, and therefore, the issues raised by Sitar were not properly before the court of appeals. View "Sitar v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony incest for having sexual intercourse with his daughter, a minor under the age of twelve. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court issued erroneous jury instructions on his incest charge that denied him a unanimous verdict. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) an error in the jury instructions deprived Defendant of his right to a unanimous jury verdict; and (2) Defendant's retrial for felony incest was not proscribed by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Remanded. View "Rodriguez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellants, PremierTox, Inc. and PremierTox 2.0 (collectively, PremierTox) filed an action against Kentucky Spirit Health Plan, Inc. and others (collectively, Appellees), alleging that it was owed $1.8 million by Kentucky Spirit for services it had provided to Medicaid patients and for which Kentucky Spirit had allegedly been paid by the Commonwealth. The circuit court ordered Appellees to deposit $1.8 million into an escrow account controlled by the circuit court pending adjudication of the claim. The court of appeals issued a writ to prohibit enforcement of the circuit court's order, concluding that the circuit court lacked the authority to require Appellees to pay the demanded judgment into court in advance of an adjudication that Appellees owed the money. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals to issue the writ of prohibition, holding (1) the circuit court acted erroneously in ordering Appellees to escrow the disputed funds under Ky. R. Civ. P. 67.02; (2) the circuit court's order was essentially a pre-judgment attachment for which Appellees lacked an adequate remedy on appeal or otherwise; and (3) Appellees satisfied the "irreparable injury" prong of the proper writ analysis. View "PremierTox 2.0 v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Jason Morris worked for Owensboro Grain, a refinery located on the Ohio River. Morris suffered a work-related injury while performing deckhand duties, including loading items onto a barge. Morris received benefits from Owensboro Grain's Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) insurance policy. Later, Morris filed a claim for Kentucky workers' compensation benefits. Owensboro Grain denied the claim on the grounds that the injury was not covered under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. An ALJ dismissed Morris's claim, finding that Morris's injury fell under the LHWCA, and therefore, Kentucky had no subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. The Workers' Compensation Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Morris was covered under the LHWCA, he was exempt from Kentucky's workers' compensation law unless Owensboro Grain provided him voluntary coverage; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove that Owensboro Grain provided voluntary workers' compensation coverage to Morris. View "Morris v. Owensboro Grain Co., LLC" on Justia Law

When Dorinda and Joseph, the parents of two children, decided to divorce, they entered into a temporary agreement entered by the trial court setting forth terms dealing with the custody and support of the two children. The agreement designated Dorinda as the custodial parent and determined the proportional share of support Joseph would pay to her. Nothing in the agreement took into account the amount of time the children were to spend with each parent. Joseph later filed a motion to modify child support based on the significant amount of time the children spent in his physical custody. The trial court concluded that the current situation remained in the children's best interests and ordered that the child support remain at the amount the parties agreed to in the temporary order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while the trial court's consideration of parents' visitation or time-sharing arrangement in deciding the amount of child support to be paid is permitted, it is not mandatory; and (2) the trial court's failure to factor time-sharing into its decision in this case was not in error. View "McFelia v. McFelia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with the intent to use or manufacture methamphetamine, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search of the house at which Appellant was found carrying methamphetamine precursors, as Appellant lacked sufficient standing to challenge the validity of the warrantless search; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict based on the Commonwealth's failure to disprove entrapment, as no reasonable juror could have concluded that Appellant was entrapped and not guilty of the crimes charged. View "Mackey v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law