Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the family court denying the motion of the Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, ex rel. Child Support Enforcement's (Cabinet) to set aside an agreed judgment regarding the paternity of a child born out of wedlock, holding that the underlying judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Cabinet brought this action to set aside the agreed judgment in this case, arguing that the judgment was void and entered due to fraud and should be side aside under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02. The family court denied the motion as untimely, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court acted outside its statutory authority in adjudicating non-paternity without a corollary determination of paternity as to an identified father; and (2) because the judgment was void, rule 60.02(e) mandated that the judgment be set aside. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Child Support Enforcement v. B.N.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that three dependency-neglect-abuse (DNA) petitions filed by the guardian ad litem (GAL) of three children against the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) should have been dismissed.The GAL brought this action raising concerns regarding the conduct of the CHFS with respect to three children committed to its temporary custody. The CHFS filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the neglect petitions did not state a viable cause of action because the CHFS was entitled to governmental immunity. The family court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the General Assembly waived the CHFS's right to governmental immunity in DNA matters. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' decisions and remanded for dismissal of the GAL's DNA petitions, holding (1) the GAL's allegations should have been addressed by a motion in the context of the existing DNA cases rather than in separate actions; and (2) in any event, the petitions were moot on their face. View "Commonwealth v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals that affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) award of permanent partial disability benefits to Plaintiff, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Plaintiff worked for Defendant for twenty-three years as a garbage truck driver and loader. After he was injured on two separate occasions, Plaintiff filed two claims for workers' compensation benefits. The ALJ awarded Plaintiff permanent partial disability benefits, applying the three-multiple from Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(1)(c)(1) to the benefits for both injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ's award was supported by substantial evidence. View "Apple Valley Sanitation, Inc. v. Stambaugh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellants' claims in this case raising questions regarding a challenge to a constitutional ballot initiative, holding that Appellants lacked standing to bring their claims.In 2018, Kentucky voters ratified the constitutional amendment known as Marsy's Law, but the Supreme Court invalidated the amendment on procedural grounds. In 2020, after the General Assembly again proposed the Marsy's Law constitutional amendment, Appellants brought a complaint seeing declaratory and injunctive relief either prohibiting Marsy's Law from appearing on the ballot or preventing tabulation of votes on ratification of the amendment. The trial court ruled against Plaintiffs on their procedural claims but concluded that Appellants' facial challenges to Marsy's Law were not ripe. After the parties appealed, Kentucky voters ratified that Marsy's Law constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding that Appellants lacked constitutional standing to bring their claims because they failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact on the record. View "Ward v. Westerfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the circuit court affirming the district court's order liquidating a trust's assets, holding that the order was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, and unsupported by sound legal principles.J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., obtained a Jefferson District Court Court order that improperly directed the Bank to liquidate certain trust assets and pay them into the Jefferson Registry of Court. The circuit court affirmed the district court's action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Bank violated its statutory and fiduciary duties by liquidating the trust's assets when the legislature has provided an adequate mechanism and remedy for the settlement and distribution of trust assets; and (2) as a remedy, the district court is to order an accounting and appropriate damages. View "Estate of Worrall v. J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of two counts of murder and four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree and sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.In 2012, a jury found Defendant guilty but mentally ill of murder and wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, the main issue at trial was Defendant's affirmative defense of insanity or, in the alternative, extreme emotional disturbance. A jury found Defendant guilty of the crimes and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit. View "Hall v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the trial court's order ordering Appellant to complete the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) but reversing the trial court's determination that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision, holding that the trial court did not err in issuing its final judgment.Appellant entered an Alford plea to two counts of criminal attempt to commit first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor and one count of third-degree terroristic threatening. The trial court imposed a ten-year prison sentence, ordered Appellant to complete the SOTP, but determined that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Appellant was not subject to post-incarceration supervision. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Appellant was eligible for post-incarceration supervision. View "Richardson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for an order prohibiting or delaying the formation of a collective bargaining unit composed of non-supervisory attorneys employed by the Louisville Metro Public Defender's Office, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to such an extraordinary remedy.Petitioner, a non-supervisory staff attorney employed by the Public Defender's Office, petitioned for an order prohibiting or delaying the formation of a collective bargaining unit composed of non-supervisory Public Defender's Office employees until the court could determined whether the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct permit attorneys to be members of a collective bargaining unit. The Supreme Court declined to grant relief, holding that these circumstances were not so rare and compelling as to merit a supervisory writ. View "Seadler v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming a family court order of contempt, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the order sought to punish future contempt rather than present contempt.The family court ultimately held Appellant in contempt, found him to be $126,691 in arrears on his child support (including interest), and reduced his monthly payment. The court of appeals affirmed the order of contempt. The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals, holding (1) the family court's factual findings were not erroneous; but (2) because the family court sought to coercively punish Appellant's future conduct, the order was an abuse of discretion. View "Crandell v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Dilke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing this tort action with prejudice under CR 41.02(1), holding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice.Plaintiff commenced this tort action alleging violations of various laws relating to occupational safety. Defendant filed a notice for independent medication examination (IME), but Plaintiff did not appear. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court concluded that dismissal was warranted in part because Plaintiff violated court orders by failing to appear for mediation and the IME. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that to the extent Plaintiff violated any court orders, those violations were insufficient to warrant the extreme remedy of dismissal with prejudice. View "Jones v. Pinter" on Justia Law