Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Jefferson County Board of Education (BOE) and dismissing this lawsuit on immunity grounds, holding that the BOE was entitled to summary judgment on its immunity claim.A Western High School student, through his mother and next friend, brought suit against the BOE and Brian Raho, the assistant principal at the high school, for assault and battery. The trial court granted summary judgment for the BOE and Raho, finding that the BOE was entitled to sovereign immunity and that Raho was entitled to qualified official immunity. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion to the extent that the court reversed the summary judgment to the BOE, holding that, while the trial court cited to the incorrect type of immunity, it correctly found that the BOE was immune from suit. View "Jefferson County Public Schools v. Tudor" on Justia Law

In this workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court vacated the ALJ's determination that Defendant was correct to deny Plaintiff benefits on the ground that he was an independent contractor, not an employee, holding that this Court hereby adopts the economic realities test to safeguard the protection afforded by workers' compensation.Plaintiff was working as a taxi driver for Defendant when he was shot in the shoulder and became permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Plaintiff sought workers' compensation to pay for his extensive medical care, but Defendant denied the claim due to Plaintiff's status as an independent contractor. An ALJ also determined that Plaintiff was an independent contractor. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated the ALJ's opinion. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the ALJ, holding that this Court's holding in Mouanda v. Jani-King International, 635 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. 2022) adopting the economic realities test is extended to the workers' compensation context. View "Oufafa v. Taxi, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence must be vacated because the circuit court committed palpable error, holding relief was warranted but that the court improperly reversed Defendant's probation revocation.Defendant pled guilty to two felonies and of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and was sentenced to a twenty-two term of imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion to vacate, challenging the plea agreement and his conviction and sentence. The court of appeals concluded that the circuit court committed palpable error, warranting resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) while the court of appeals erred by treating Defendant's appeal as a direct appeal, the court's conclusion that the circuit court committed reversible error was not erroneous; and (2) the court of appeals erred by reversing the circuit court's probation revocation order. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claim against Wal-Mart, holding that the trial court properly held that the volume of third-party criminal acts on Wal-Mart's premises in the past did not create a duty of reasonable care to protect Plaintiff against the crime she suffered.Plaintiff was parked in a Wal-Mart parking lot when she was attacked and robbed by two unknown men in her car. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Wal-Mart was negligent by not having a security presence outside the store to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart, concluding that the store owed Plaintiff no duty. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals improperly extended this Court's holding in Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013), and incorrectly reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in doing so. View "Walmart, Inc. v. Reeves" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the opinion and order of the Workers' Compensation Board denying Officer Tracy Toler's petition for reconsideration of the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) declining to award Toler an additional two percent impairment rating for pain, holding that a physician that is not licensed in Kentucky does not meet the definition of "physician" under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.0011(32).Dr. Craig Roberts conducted an independent medical examination on Toler and assessed a six percent whole person impairment rating. To contest the rating, Toler's employer filed a report by Dr. Christopher Brigham believing a four percent impairment rating was more appropriate. The ALJ found Dr. Brigham's opinion to be more credible than Dr. Roberts' and did not award Toler an additional two percent impairment rating for pain. On appeal, Toler argued that Brigham did not qualify as a "physician" under section 342.0011(32). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ALJ's opinion and order, holding that Dr. Brigham did not meet the statutory definition of "physician" under the statute, and therefore, his report was inadmissible. View "Toler v. Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming several circuit court rulings in the underlying dissolution proceeding between Wife and Husband, holding that the circuit court erred in part.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court erred in its division of Husband's 401(k); (2) the circuit court did not err in its valuation of Husband's ownership in a corporation but did err in its distribution of that ownership interest; (3) the circuit court erred in its rulings regarding attorney's fees; and (4) given this Court's holdings, reconsideration of maintenance was required. View "Thielmeier v. Thielmeier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the circuit court that HB 503, codified at Ky. Rev. Stat. 141.500-.528 and known as the "Education Opportunity Account Act" (EOA Act), is unconstitutional, holding that the EOA Act violates section 184.In 2021, the General Assembly passed the HB 563, which, as codified, established the Education Opportunity Account Program. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the EOA Act, arguing that it impermissibly redirects state revenues to nonpublic schools. The circuit court granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims involving sections 59 and 184 of the Kentucky Constitution and granted the requested injunctive relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the EOA Act violates the plain language of section 184 and the prohibition on raising or collecting funds for nonpublic schools. View "Commonwealth ex rel. Cameron v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, holding that a proper application of the four-factor test set forth in Wells v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. App. 1986), supported Defendant's conviction.The district court convicted Defendant of DUI, and the circuit court affirmed, relying a certain circumstantial evidence. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction on the sufficiency of the evidence and that the conviction was not clearly unreasonable from the perspective of a rational fact finder. View "Commonwealth v. Woods" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of first-degree assault and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court committed no error in its application of Marsy's Law by allowing the complaining witness to be present at trial and committed no palpable error by referring to the complaining witness as a "victim"; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of extreme emotional disturbance and assault in the second degree. View "Cavanaugh v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversedvDefendant's convictions for tampering with physical evidence and strangulation, as well as concomitant convictions for persistent felony offender based upon them and a drug paraphernalia conviction but affirmed the conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that errors occurred below requiring reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error in the trial court prohibiting Defendant from inquiring into the victim's rights under Marsy's law; (2) the evidence could not predicate a charge of tampering with evidence under Ky. Rev. Stat. 524.100(1)(a); (3) the trial court erred when it admitted buccal without proper foundation buccal swabs, and the error substantially influenced the jury in determining guilt on the strangulation charge, requiring reversal of the strangulation conviction and the PFO II conviction concomitant with it; and (4) the trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial. View "Saxton v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law