Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of wanton murder and other crimes and his sentence of thirty years' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant was driving a 2006 Ford Mustang when he t-boned a golf cart that killed the golf cart's passenger. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of wanton murder, first-degree assault, wanton endangerment, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) excluding evidence for lack of relevance as to additional signage placed in the cart path after the date of the collision; (2) failing to instruct the jury in accordance with its order taking judicial notice; (3) failing to conduct a Daubert hearing before denying Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of two experts; and (4) did not err by declining to instruct the jury on reckless homicide. View "Pozo-Illas v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this case arising the death of James Savage after he was thrown from his motorcycle and run over by Oscar Ramos, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals remanding this case back to the circuit court for a new trial, holding that remand was required under the circumstances.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford was not the owner of the Jeep Wrangler at issue according to Ky. Rev. Stat. 186A.530(3), and Co-part of Connecticut, Inc. was required to obtain proof of insurance pursuant to sections 186A.215 and 186A.220; (2) the court of appeals improperly engaged in fact-finding that affected its judgment on other issues; (3) the court of appeals erred in ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Co-part to withdraw an admission; (4) strict liability does not apply as a matter of law for violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. 186A.500; and (5) Aull v. Houston, 345 S.W.3d 232 (Ky. App. 2010) is hereby abrogated to the extent that it can be read to hold that Social Security Disability benefits are inadmissible in a damages calculation in a wrongful death suit. View "Savage v. Co-Part of Connecticut, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty-seven years' imprisonment for his convictions, holding that none of Defendant's claims raised in support of his request for a new trial mandated reversal of his convictions and sentence.Defendant was convicted of murder, four counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and failure to give right-of-way to a stopped emergency vehicle. On appeal, Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth but argued that the trial court made numerous errors with respect to three evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motions to suppress; and (3) erred by forbidding Defendant from using proof of a statement of his, already admitted into evidence, to argue during closing argument that his intent was reckless at most, but the error was harmless. View "Burdette v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In 1993, Appellant was convicted of 141 counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of first-degree rape. In 2016, a panel of the court of appeals sanctioned Appellant in light of the fact that he had filed more than eighty-four appeals and original actions in an attempt to relitigate his convictions. This matter arose from Appellant's "Notice to Submit Documents to Support Motion for New Trial." After the circuit court denied the submission Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the circuit court. The court of appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous, relying on its 2016 sanction order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant's appeal; and (2) the lower courts properly imposed sanctions on Appellant for his history of frivolous and vexatious appeals. View "Violett v. Grise" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dissolving the circuit court's temporary injunction against two statutes that effectively prohibit abortions in Kentucky except in limited circumstances where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction.Plaintiffs, several abortion providers, filed for injunctive and declaratory relief against Ky. Rev. Stat. 311.772 and Ky. Rev. Stat. 311.7707-11, arguing that the bans contained in the statutes violated their patients' right to privacy under sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution. The circuit court granted the temporary injunction. The court of appeals dissolved the temporary injunction against the bans. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs lacked third-party standing to challenge the statutes on behalf of their patients, but Plaintiffs did have first-party, constitutional standing to challenge one of the statutes on their own behalf; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting the temporary injunction. View "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C." on Justia Law

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