Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order and judgment of the circuit court enforcing a settlement agreement, holding that the Statute of Frauds was applicable in this case.After a dispute over an alleged forgery in a will, the parties reached a mediation agreement as to certain property. The trial court adopted the mediation agreement as part of its judgment and ordered it to be enforced. The court of appeals appealed, ruling that the Statute of Frauds was not applicable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Statute of Frauds was applicable, barring enforcement of the agreement. View "Adamson v. Adamson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision dismissing Appellant's appeal from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that Appellant's failure to name the children in her notice of appeal was a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.In ordering the appeal to be dismissed, the court of appeals held that serving the children's guardian ad litem with the notice of appeal was insufficient to cure the jurisdiction defect in this case of failing to name the children in either the caption or body of the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) service of the notice of appeal upon a child's guardian ad litem is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over that child to an appellate court; and (2) R.L.W. v. Cabinet for Human Resrouces, 756 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. App. 1988), is overruled insofar as it holds that the failure to name a child in a notice of appeal from a termination of parental rights is automatic grounds for dismissal. View "M.A.B. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order of summary judgment determining that a county jail may both retain monies collected from a prisoner and further bill the same prisoner for the cost of his confinement after the charges against him have been dropped, holding that the trial court and court of appeals erred in their interpretation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 441.265.At the time of his release, Appellant owed the Clark County Detention Center (CCDC) $4,009 in fees. Thereafter, the criminal charges against Appellant were dismissed without prejudice. Appellant later filed a class action complaint claiming that section 441.265 did not permit the CCDC to bill him for the cost of his confinement when all charges against him had been dismissed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the CCDC, concluding that section 441.265 permitted the CCDC to assess the fees and that no provision of the Kentucky Constitution had been violated. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the CCDC violated section 441.265 because the billing and collecting of fees assessed by the CCDC cannot be carried out without the order of a sentencing court. View "Jones v. Clark County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Defendant of murder, holding that there was no prejudicial error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by granting a partial Fifth Amendment privilege to a witness, overruling his objection to the Commonwealth's closing argument, allowing a detective to narrate videos about which he had no personal knowledge, and denying Defendant the opportunity to recross-examine the detective regarding the testimony he provided during his redirect examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error requiring reversal of Defendant's convictions. View "McRae v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision that invalidated Ky. Rev. Stat. 341.470(3) on constitutional grounds, holding that Appellant lacked standing to question the validity of the statute.After he was discharged from his employment with a corporation for misconduct related to his work Appellant made a claim for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. A referee denied benefits, and the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued that a non-attorney employee appearing on behalf of the corporation at the UI referee hearings, as authorized by section 341.470(3), was impermissibly engaging in the practice of law. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that corporations must be represented by counsel at UI referee hearings. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that Appellant lacked standing to contest the constitutional validity of section 341.470(3) because he failed to show an injury in fact or that he suffered any harm from the corporation's lack of legal representation. View "Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Nichols" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's determination that the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems' (Board) investment authority with respect to the County Employees Retirement System (CERS) was governed by Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.650, holding that there was no error.The Cities of Fort Wright, Covington, Taylor Mill, and Independence (the Cities) brought this action alleging improper investments by the Board in its management of CERS. The trial court granted the Board's motion for declaratory judgment, determining that the Board had broad discretion in making investments, see Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.650 and 61.545(21), and therefore, its investments were lawful. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the Board's authorized investments were controlled broadly by section 61.650, as argued by the Board, or more restrictively by Ky. Rev. Stat. 78.790, as argued by the Cities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the Board's investment authority was governed by section 61.650 and not by section 78.790. View "City of Fort Wright v. Board of Trustees of Kentucky Retirement Systems" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's judgment in favor of Defendants in this suit against healthcare providers seeking damages for alleged breach of duties, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff sued Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., Apogee Medical Group Kentucky, PSC and Subhose Bathing, M.D. alleging that Defendants breached their standards of care for by prescribing two antibiotics known to be linked to arrhythmias and cardiac arrest when taken by patients with low potassium. After a trial, the jury found that neither defendant had breached their standard of care. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Plaintiff claimed eight errors in the proceedings below. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no prejudicial error in this case. View "Kentucky Guardianship Administrators, LLC v. Baptist Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the judgment of the trial court upholding the decision of the Retirement Systems's Administrative Review Board affirming the decision of the Kentucky Retirement Systems applying the Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.598, the pension-spiking statute, to assess actuarial costs to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office (JCSO), holding that the Retirement Systems erred in part.The Kentucky Retirement Systems assessed the costs because it found a JCSO employee took unpaid leave for two months, causing a temporary decrease in gross compensation in that year, but then returned to his earlier pay. The circuit court agreement with the Retirement Systems, finding that section 61.598 as applied was not arbitrary. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Retirement Systems improperly applied section 61.598 to the pay spikes to the extent the changes in compensation were caused by an isolated transition in JCSO's new accounting method but properly assessed the increased actuarial costs to the extent it was caused by regular overtime work; and (2) different aspects of the circuit court's decision were erroneous. View "Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated one of Defendant's convictions on twenty counts of possession of matter portraying the sexual act of a minor, holding that the conviction violated double jeopardy.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to prove Defendant knowingly possessed child pornography. The Supreme Court held (1) the Commonwealth produced more than sufficient evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed child pornography on his computer; (2) one of Defendant's convictions was tainted by double jeopardy since it related to an exhibit with the same file name and hash value; and (3) the trial court did not err in granting the Commonwealth's motion to present evidence of uncharged crimes pursuant to Ky. R. Evid. 404(b). View "Bounds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the court of appeals that vacated the orders of the circuit court regarding the adoption and custody of two children, holding that the adoption statutes require that the parental rights of both biological parents be terminated upon the grant of an adoption, with the single exception of a stepparent adoption.Following a hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of the unknown biological fathers of the two children at issue and granted the petition to adopt the children filed by David, who was the former husband of the child's mother. David was not the biological father of the children, but he acted as such throughout their lives. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petitions based in part on David's lack of paternity. The circuit court terminated the putative fathers' parental rights and allowed David to adopt the children while leaving Mother's parental rights intact. The court then granted David and Mother joint custody of the children. The court of appeals reversed the adoption order and the custody order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's adoption orders violated Kentucky's adoption statutes and must be vacated. View "J.S.B. v. S.R.V." on Justia Law