Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action brought by Charmin Watson alleging that Dr. Amberly Kay Windisch failed to obtain Watson's informed consent prior to surgical placement of a mid-urethral sling, holding that the trial court did not err.Watson brought this lawsuit alleging that Dr. Windisch had failed to obtain informed consent by failing to explain to her the specific risk of injury due to erosion or migration of the mesh sling. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Windisch. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a medical malpractice claim based upon lack of informed consent must be specifically pled; and (2) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Windisch on the issue of informed consent. View "Watson v. Landmark Urology, P.S.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court to overturn a final order of the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services dismissing an administrative action against Appalachian Hospice Care, Inc., holding that there was no error.At issue on appeal was whether the Secretary erred in concluding that a non-lawyer's request for an administrative hearing on behalf of a corporate entity constitutes the unauthorized practice of law requiring dismissal of the administrative action. The lower courts answered the question in the negative. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no unauthorized practice of law in this case. View "Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. Appalachian Hospice Care, Inc." on Justia Law