Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Employer terminated an employment agreement with Employee, Employee sued for wrongful termination, seeking a declaration that a non-competition provision in the employment agreement was unenforceable. The trial court temporarily enjoined enforcement of the non-competition provision. Employer sought to dissolve the temporary injunction by filing a motion for temporary relief. The court of appeals granted the relief sought and dissolved the temporary injunction, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the temporarily injunction because Employee failed to make the requisite showing of irreparable injury. Employee subsequently requested that the Supreme Court granted him interlocutory relief and restore the trial court’s temporary injunction. The Supreme Court denied interlocutory relief, holding that the court of appeals did not err in finding that Employee failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable injury. View "Gharad v. St. Claire Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for killing her husband. Appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a recorded conversation between Appellant and a police detective in which Appellant was consistently silent in the face of accusatory questions. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the admission of the recording violated Appellant’s due process rights by using her silence against her, and the admission of the tape was not harmless error. View "Bartley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of the second-degree rape of a twelve-year-old girl and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that a photograph of the victim lying in a hospital bed the day after she gave birth to Appellant’s child was improperly introduced at trial because the photograph was irrelevant to the case, highly prejudicial, and lacked any probative value. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photograph into evidence, and the error was not harmless. View "Hughes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, several lot owners in Sandy Beach Subdivision, filed a petition for declaration of rights seeking a declaration that Sandy Beach Lane, a subdivision roadway, was a private roadway. Plaintiff also sought to enjoin Defendants, the developers of two separate subdivisions, or other lot owners in those subdivisions from installing driveways or culverts onto Sandy Beach Lane. The trial court concluded that Sandy Beach Lane was a private road for the sole use and benefit of the lot owners in Sandy Beach Subdivision. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Sandy Beach Lane was a public roadway dedicated by estoppel involving plat. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Sandy Beach Lane is a private roadway for the use and benefit of lot owners in the Sandy Beach Subdivision; and (2) the easement for use of Sandy Beach Lane may not be extended or enlarged by allowing property owners in nearby, more recently-developed subdivisions to build driveways or culverts opening onto the road because this increased access to the road by adjacent landowners was not contemplated by the parties. View "Kircheimer v. Carrier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Defendants after sustaining serious injuries in an automobile collision. In the first trial, the jury was instructed on the “sudden emergency” doctrine and returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a retrial, holding that the sudden emergency doctrine did not apply. On remand, the second jury was not instructed on the sudden emergency doctrine and, contrary to the first trial, was also not instructed Defendants had a duty to stay in the right lane. The second jury also returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court should have granted Plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict in the second trial and ordered the case to be retried only on the issues of damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the law-of-the-case doctrine did not preclude the court of appeals from determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted after the second trial; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in holding that the trial court should have directed verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, nor did the court misstate material facts in its opinion. View "Wright v. Carroll" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual abuse and three counts of first degree sodomy of two victims, Sarah and Nicholas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error that occurred by the admission of hearsay testimony from two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses was not palpable; (2) there was not palpable error in the introduction evidence that Appellant argued was impermissible Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence; (3) Appellant was not unduly prejudiced by the testimonies of Sarah, Nicholas, and other witnesses; (4) any error in the the admission of a picture Nicholas drew in elementary school was not palpable; (5) the trial court did not violate Appellant’s right to a fair trial by failing to excuse a juror; and (6) Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "Tackett v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was taken into custody after a warrantless search of his vehicle. Defendant was subsequently indicted for handgun- and drug-related offenses. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his vehicle. The court of appeals vacated the circuit court’s order suppressing the evidence, concluding (1) the Commonwealth’s appeal was timely filed; and (2) although the search was unlawful, the exclusionary rule did not require suppression because the police officer who searched Defendant’s car followed existing precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal was timely filed; and (2) the search in this case was unconstitutional under Arizona v. Gant and Rose v. Commonwealth, but because the search was conducted by an officer in objectively reasonable reliance on clearly established precedent, the exclusionary rule did not apply to exclude the contraband discovered in Defendant’s vehicle. View "Parker v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Patrick Darcy and his codefendant, Randy McCleery, Jr., were separately indicted for crimes arising out of the burglary of a residence but were scheduled to be jointly tried. Twelve days before the scheduled trial date, private counsel filed a motion seeking a continuance to enable him to substitute his services for those of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), who represented Darcy at all pre-trial proceedings. Darcy’s motion was denied in order to protect McCleery’s statutory right to a speedy trial. After a trial with the DPA continuing to represent Darcy, Darcy was convicted of first-degree burglary, first-degree fleeing or evading the police, and theft by unlawful taking of property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a continuance of a joint trial requested by a defendant, so long as it is reasonable, is included within the “elastic” clause of Ky. Rev. Stat. 500.110, thus allowing the extension of the statutory speedy-trial time period; and (2) the trial court in this case erred by denying Darcy’s motion for a continuance because its action was based on a seeming misinterpretation of section 500.110. View "Darcy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Luvetta Goff died as a result of complications from elective surgery performed by Appellants at the University of Kentucky Hospital (UK Hospital). Goff’s estate filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice action against Appellants. During discovery, the estate requested an “incident” or “event” report generated by a UK Hospital nurse concerning the surgery through the UK Healthcare Safety Evaluation System. Appellant sought a protective order concerning the report, arguing that it fell within the federal privilege created by the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005. The court of appeals granted Appellants the writ. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals regarding the scope of the privilege under the Act, holding (1) the court of appeals was misguided in its ultimate limitations on the scope of the privilege; and (2) information normally contained in an incident report is not privileged under the Act and may be discovered, following an in camera review, and its information compelled. Remanded. View "Tibbs v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance (KEMI) was the workers’ compensation carrier for Beacon Enterprises, Inc. at the time that Julian Hoskins was injured during the course of his employment with Four Star Transportation, Inc. (Four Star). Four Star had configured its workforce pursuant to an employee leasing arrangement with a company affiliated with Beacon Enterprises, an employee leasing company. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Hoskins was not covered by Beacon Enterprises’ policy with KEMI because Hoskins was not an employee of Beacon Enterprises at the time of the injury. The court of appeals upheld the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.615 does not require an employee to have knowledge of his status as a leased employee or of the nature of his relationship with the employee leasing company; and (2) because the court of appeals grounded its opinion upon Hoskins’s lack of knowledge, the matter must be remanded for the court to address other issues raised by KEMI in support of the Board’s decision. View "Ky. Ininsured Employers’ Fund v. Hoskins" on Justia Law