Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decisions of the administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board that the twelve percent interest on workers' compensation income benefits that were due but unpaid under the prior version of Ken. Rev. Stat. 342.040 applied in this case, holding that the six percent interest rate provided for in the 2017 amendment to the statute was applicable to all of Appellant's due but unpaid benefits.After the 2017 amendment, section 342.040 now provides for an interest rate of six percent on due but unpaid benefits. In 2016, Appellant experienced a compensable injury. Appellant filed a claim after the effective date of the amendment in 2017 and was awarded income benefits by an ALJ in 2018. Both the ALJ and the Board concluded that the twelve percent interest rate continued to apply to that portion of Appellant's benefit award that was attributable to the period before the 2017 effective date of the amendment. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the General ASsembly's non-codified but express language regarding its intent with respect to the interest rate set forth in the 2017 amendment, the entirety of Appellant's benefit award was subject to the amended six percent interest rate. View "Martin v. Warrior Coal LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of trafficking in a controlled substance (heroin) in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and sentencing him to twenty years in prison, holding that the circuit court did not err in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's pretrial motion to either suppress the evidence from an undercover drug buy or to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) properly admitted into evidence better-quality copies of Snapchat messages than the ones provided to Defendant in discovery. View "Pope v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of murder and tampering with physical evidence and sentencing him to forty-three years' imprisonment, holding that the trial court erred in admitting two items of tangible evidence but that this error was not enough to warrant reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant's time fraud as motivation to murder; (2) admitting into evidence a red knife and latex gloves found in Defendant's truck was error, but those errors were harmless; (3) the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying a missing-evidence instruction; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to a new trial for cumulative error. View "Dooley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals rejecting the trial court's conclusion that Defendant was not required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) but nevertheless affirming the judgment, holding that Defendant qualified for lifetime SORA registration for his crimes.Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts of distributing child pornography. At sentencing, the trial court found, in contrary to the Commonwealth's argument, that Defendant was not required to become a SORA registrant because his crimes were not sex crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) SORA requires those who have committed crimes against minors, such as Defendant, to register; but (2) Defendant's three felony convictions exempted him from SORA because his convictions were each charged as first-offense crimes against a minor and all three convictions arose from a single course of conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant must register under SORA for his lifetime because he was convicted of multiple offenses defined as a crime against a minor. View "Commonwealth v. Daughtery" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insureds (Insureds) but remanded the case to the trial court to allow Insureds an opportunity to litigate a lack of capacity defense, holding that the trial court's summary judgment against the insurer (Insurer) was erroneous.Insureds brought a declaratory judgment action to establish that Insurer owed payment under a homeowner's insurance policy for damage caused by a house fire. The house was damaged when Plaintiffs' son, Logan, attempted suicide. Insurer denied liability based on an "intentional loss" exclusion in the policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Insureds, declaring the exclusion inoperative. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, viewed objectively, undisputed evidence triggered the exclusion, and therefore, the summary judgment in favor of Insureds was erroneous. The Court then remanded the case to allow Insureds an opportunity to litigate a potential lack of capacity defense. View "Foreman v. Auto Club Property-Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing this complaint brought under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 344, holding that the KCRA does not bar an employe from discharging an employee because of the disability of an individual with whom the employee associates.After Employer terminated Employee's employment for lack of work Employee sued, alleging that his firing violated the KCRA. Specifically, Employee claimed that Employer discriminated against him for his association with his wife, who suffered from cystic fibrosis. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the text of the KCRA does not support a cause of action for discrimination based on an employee's association with a disabled individual. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employee failed to state a claim supported under Kentucky law. View "Barnett v. Central Kentucky Hauling, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinions of the court of appeals and the circuit court in this case involving the issues of the mandatory recusal of the trial judge and the interpretation of deeds, holding that the circuit court judge in this instance was required to recuse, necessitating this Court's setting aside the judgment.In this property dispute centering on the ownership of a right of way following a railroad's abandonment, the trial judge adjudged Plaintiff the owner of the property. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge should have recused himself from the matter. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) Defendant sufficiently established that, in this proceeding, the trial judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and that his recusal was mandatory; and (2) interpretation of deeds and the devolution and ownership of a right of way following a railroad's abandonment are matters of law, which an appellate court reviews do novo. View "Abbott, Inc. v. Guirguis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the family court's finding of neglect against M.C. regarding his three teenaged children and vacated the family court's orders, holding that the family court's finding that M.C. neglected his children was an abuse of discretion.The family court found that the three children in this case were neglected by M.C. under Ky. Rev. Stat. 600.020(1)(a)2, 3, 4, and 8. The court of appeals affirmed, holding, among other things, that there was sufficient evidence of risk of physical or emotional injury to support a finding of neglect in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was no evidence that M.C.'s children were at a risk of physical or emotional injury; (2) there was no evidence that M.C.'s substance use disorder rendered him incapable of caring for his children or meeting their needs; and (3) no reasonable argument could be made that M.C. neglected his children under either section 600.020(1)(a)4 or 8. View "M.C. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Elderserve, Inc.'s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the family court to grant its motion to amend an annulment petition to include a petition for dissolution of the marriage of Charles Brooks and Taylor Toney, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to amend.On Brooks' behalf, Elderserve sought to amend the annulment petition to include a petition for a dissolution of the marriage of Brooks and Toney. In denying the motion to amend, the family court cited the prohibition in Johnson v. Johnson, 170 S.W.2d 889 (Ky. 1943), against guardians initiating an action for divorce on behalf of their wards. Elderserve then sought the writ of mandamus at issue. The court of appeals denied the writ, also relying on the holding in Johnson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the annulment petition was not in error because Johnson was good precedent at the time the court entertained Elderserve's petition; (2) changes to the Kentucky guardianship statutes since Johnson's rendering no longer justify its complete prohibition of guardian-initiated divorces. The opinion then described legal steps a guardian must follow before it can petition for a divorce of its ward. View "Brooks v. Honorable Tara Hagerty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Kentucky Tax Company, LLC on Kentucky Tax's suit to foreclose its lien on certain property and to collect amounts owed by Pleasant Unions, LLC, holding that Kentucky Tax did not comply with statutory notice requirements.Kentucky Tax acquired a certificate of delinquency for property owned by Pleasant Unions. Kentucky Tax then brought this action. Kentucky Tax filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching letters to show that it had satisfied the notice requirements of Ky. Rev. Stat. 134.490. In response, Pleasant Unions claimed that Kentucky Tax had not proven that two letters were actually mailed. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Kentucky Tax, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an affidavit from Kentucky Tax's attorney tendered in support of its summary judgment motion was not sufficient proof of mailing as required by the applicable statute; and (2) summary judgment was premature because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to Kentucky Tax's compliance with the notice requirements of section 134.490. View "Pleasant Unions, LLC v. Kentucky Tax Co., LLC" on Justia Law