Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Appellee worked for the City of Middlesboro. Approximately one month before the last date of his paid employment, Appellant filed for disability retirement benefits as a member of the County Employees Retirement Systems. Appellant based his application on a work-related back injury and "breathing problems," citing his diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the reason for his breathing problems. A hearing officer recommended denial of benefits, concluding that Appellee's COPD was the result of his chronic use of tobacco and that there was no permanent impairment to Appellee's back. The Disability Appeals Committee adopted the hearing officer's recommended order. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the hearing officer had failed to consider the cumulative effect of Appellee's various impairments and that the hearing officer improperly considered Appellee's chronic tobacco use as a "pre-existing condition." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the hearing officer did, in fact, consider the combined effect of Appellee's impairments as required by Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.600; and (2) the hearing officer's conclusion that Appellee's COPD was a pre-existing condition was reasonable. View "Ky. Ret. Sys. v. West" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of murder, first-degree burglary, and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. After a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant subsequently filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion collaterally attacking his sentence and conviction, claiming that his guilty plea should be set aside as involuntary because he believed the trial judge had agreed to sentence him to life without parole and because his trial counsel bullied him into entering the guilty plea. The trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing on whether there was judicial interference in the plea process and whether Defendant was coerced by his counsel. After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial judge denied Defendant's motion for relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the proof showed no judicial interference in the plea process and that Defendant's counsel did not threaten or otherwise coerce him into pleading guilty. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Sarah Crossett was employed by Jackson Purchase Medical Associate (JPMA), which leased space within a medical pavilion. Crossett was injured when she slipped and fell in snow that had accumulated outside of the building. Crossett filed for workers' compensation. JPMA disputed Crossett's claim, asserting that the injury did not occur on its operating premises under the going and coming rule, which provides that injuries that occur while an employee is on the way to or from a worksite are not compensable. An ALJ concluded that Crossett's injury was compensable, finding that Crossett fell within the operating premises of JPMA. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because JPMA could assert control over the parking area and because Crossett was not taking an unreasonable path between her car and her office, she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits for her injury. View "Jackson Purchase Med. Assocs. v. Crossett" on Justia Law

Appellee, an inmate, allegedly assaulted another inmate. After a disciplinary report was submitted against Appellee, the Adjustment Committee (Committee) determined that Appellee was guilty of the infraction and sentenced Appellee accordingly. Appellee appealed the decision and filed a petition for declaration of rights, arguing that the Committee's reliance on information obtained from confidential informants violated his constitutional due process rights. After a rehearing, the Committee again declared Appellee guilty of the infraction. The trial court ultimately dismissed Appellee's petition, concluding that the Committee did not violate Appellee's due process rights. The court of appeals reversed, determining that there was insufficient evidence of the disciplinary charge against Appellee to pass the "some evidence" standard pronounced in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Wadpole v. Hill. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Committee, relying solely on the confidential informants' information, failed to supply some evidence to support its finding that the confidential informants and their information were credibl; and (2) accordingly, Appellee's due process rights were violated. View "Haney v. Thomas" on Justia Law