Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that a police officer was entitled to qualified official immunity from liability for the decision to initiate a police pursuit that ended in a fatal automobile accident, holding that that the officer was shielded from liability.The deceased child's estate and the parents of the other injured children in this case initiated civil actions against Defendants, including the officer. The officer moved to dismiss the actions against him on immunity grounds. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that he was not entitled to immunity. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that the officer's actions were discretionary and that Appellants did not establish that the officer did not act in good faith. View "Meinhart v. Louisville Metro Government" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing against only the individual Plaintiffs multiple specifically enumerated executive orders, administrative regulations, and directives, holding that the trial court erred.Plaintiffs, several businesses, filed suit against the Governor, the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and the Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Public Health, seeking declaratory relief, a temporary injunctions and a permanent injunction regarding the Governor's orders related to COVID-19. The circuit court granted temporary injunctive relief. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the Governor to call witnesses and present evidence. View "Beshear v. Goodwood Brewing Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting a temporary injunction against implementation of House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, which the General Assembly enacted during the 2021 regular session and which amended the Governor's power to respond to emergencies, as granted in Ky. Rev. Stat. 39A, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.The Governor and the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed this declaratory action seeking a declaration that the recently-passed legislation unconstitutionally infringed on the Governor's executive powers under the Kentucky Constitution. The circuit court temporarily enjoined implementation of the challenged legislation. Thereafter, the Governor sought modification of the temporary injunction to cover HJR 77, to which the Attorney General objected. The circuit court granted the request and put on hold the implementation of HJR 77 as well. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case presented a justiciable case or controversy; and (2) the temporary injunction was not warranted. View "Cameron v. Beshear" on Justia Law

In this administrative appeal brought by the Kentucky Retirement Systems from the decision of the circuit court in two consolidated cases concerning application of Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.598 the Supreme Court held that the Retirement Systems improperly applied the statute to pay spikes to a certain extent.Section 61-598, commonly known as the pension spiking statute, identifies artificial increases in creditable compensation to public pension-member employees occurring in the last five years preceding retirement, effectively increasing the employee's retirement benefits. In both cases, the alleged spikes were partly due to a change in the Jefferson County Sheriff's office (JCSO) accounting method and partly due to the employees' accrual of overtime hours. The Retirement Systems assessed JCSO for payment increased actuarial costs attributable to the alleged pension spikes. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) an isolated transition in JCSO's new accounting method did not amount to an increase in compensation; (2) the Retirement Systems properly assessed the increased actuarial costs to the extent it was caused by regular overtime work and was not the result of a bona fide promotion or career advancement; and (3) the circuit court erred in reversing the Retirement System's original assignment of the burden of proving a bona fide promotion. View "Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted motions to dismiss this appeal from the court of appeals' denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus directing Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Olu A. Stevens to rule on a summary judgment motion, holding that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.During the pendency of this appeal, Judge Stevens issued an order granting summary judgment to Louisville Metro Government (LMG) and dismissing with prejudice all claims against it on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The judge rejected the claim of governmental immunity asserted by the other defendant, Parking Authority of River City, Inc. (PARC), based on multiple issues of material fact leading to the denial of its request for summary judgment. PARC, however, was cleared to seek an immediate interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal at hand, holding that because the request for a ruling on the summary judgment motion was issued, the need for a writ of mandamus no longer existed. View "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Honorable Olu A. Stevens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals affirming an order of the circuit court granting Father unsupervised overnight visitation with two minor daughters, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by expanding Father's visitation.After Father confessed to four incidents of inappropriately touching his daughter born from a prior marriage, Mother filed for divorce. The trial court concluded that Father had sexually abused his daughter and ordered supervised visitation for eight hours each Saturday. The court granted sole custody to Mother. Father later filed a third motion for joint custody and increased, unrestricted visitation. The trial court granted Father overnight visitation with the children every other weekend. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower courts utilized an incorrect legal standard, thereby requiring reversal. View "Moore v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus to direct Judge Stockton Wood of the Fleming Circuit Court to issue various orders in her favor, holding that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate.Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint against radiologists and health care providers alleging medical negligence, spoliation, abuse of process, obstruction of justice, and other claims. During a two-month period the trial court entered fourteen separate orders. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus directing the court to issue orders in her favor. The court of appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an adequate remedy by appeal existed for each of the errors Plaintiff alleged. View "Johnson v. Honorable Stockton Wood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the holding of the Workers' Compensation Board that the Administrative Law Judge properly found that Plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation benefits was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff received a workplace injury and filed a claim for benefits. Plaintiff never sought or received any temporary total disability benefits prior to the applicable statute of limitations expiring. The insurance adjuster for the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier offered to settle Plaintiff's claim, but the parties never reached a settlement agreement. Plaintiff later filed an application for resolution of his claim, but the employer denied the claim on the grounds that it was time barred. The ALJ found that the claim was not timely under Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.185. The Board affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ properly determined that equitable principles did not warrant the tolling of the statute of limitations. View "Davis v. Blendex Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in the underlying personal injury case, holding that there was no error.Bessie Perkins began caring for the children of Donald and Julie Thomas and Jeffrey and Elizabeth Renner in the summer of 2015. That fall, the Renner child was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. Thereafter, the Thomas child was diagnosed with two leg fractures. The parents brought a negligence action against Bessie and Jerry Perkins. State Farm, as the Perkinses' insurer, filed an intervening complaint arguing that the Perkinses' behavior implicated the "child care services exclusion," relieving State Farm of liability. The circuit court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of State Farm as to both sets of plaintiffs, finding that the child care services exclusion applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy was unambiguous and reasonable. View "Thomas v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals excluding from the definition of a "motor vehicle" or "trailer" a horse-drawn wagon for insurance coverage purposes, holding that the insurance policy was unambiguous and did not violate Plaintiff's reasonable expectations when she purchased her motorcycle coverage.While driving her motorcycle, Plaintiff encountered a horse-drawn buggy. The horse became spooked and jumped into oncoming traffic, gravely injuring Plaintiff when she collided with the horse. Plaintiff's motorcycle was insured by Progressive, and neither the driver of the buggy nor his father carried any form of insurance. Progressive denied Plaintiff's claim under the uninsured motorist provision of her motorcycle coverage on the grounds that a horse-drawn wagon was not covered under the policy. The circuit court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the horse-drawn wagon did not qualify as a "motor vehicle" or "trailer of any type" under the policy terms. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's assertions on appeal were unsupported. View "Davis v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co." on Justia Law