Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bingham Greenbaum Doll law firm (Bingham) in this ongoing dispute between Bingham and Meredith Lawrence, holding that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Bingham.The litigation in this case resulted in the foreclosure and judicial sale of some of Lawrence's property. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding (1) Lawrence's arguments challenging the Gallatin Circuit Court's jurisdiction over his case were without merit; and (2) the trial court erred in granting Bingham summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained unresolved. View "Lawrence v. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the searches and seizures leading to Defendant's conviction were illegal under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution, holding that the circuit court's suppression order was insufficient for appellate review.Defendant entered a conditional Alford plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance, third degree, and a conditional Alford plea to one count of possession of marijuana. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motions to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop. The court of appeals upheld the denial of his motions to suppress. The Supreme Court remanded the case for entry of sufficient findings of fact, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in analyzing Defendant's claim that the searches and seizures were illegal under the state and federal constitutions; but (2) the circuit court's order of suppression was factually insufficient for appellate review of Defendant's claim that his detention was unlawful and that the evidence must be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. View "Warick v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this dependency, neglect, and abuse proceeding the Supreme Court vacated the order of the court of appeals reversing the family court's decision denying an indigent mother's request for expert funding and finding the child to be a neglected child, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.After the family court made a finding of neglect, the mother failed timely to file her notice of appeal. The family court, however, permitted a belated appeal, citing excusable neglect. In reversing the family court's expert funding decision, the court of appeals found that the mother's due process rights were impacted by her inability to hire an expert. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' order, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the mother's appeal because the mother failed timely to file her appeal, and there was no excusable neglect in this case. View "Commonwealth v. H.C." on Justia Law

In this medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Paul Wesley Lewis and Ashland Hospital Corporation (KDMC) after finding that David Shackelford could not establish a prima facie case of negligence, holding that, contrary to the decision of the court of appeals, expert opinion evidence was required to establish causation.The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dr. Lewis and KDMC after determining that Shackelford could not establish a prima facie case of negligence. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the issue of causation in this case did not require expert medical testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the res ipsa loquitor exception did not apply to this case, and expert testimony was necessary; and (2) the proffered expert opinion evidence failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation. View "Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's opinion reversing Defendant's murder conviction and ordering a new trial, holding that there was not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for any of defense counsel's purported deficiencies.On appeal, the court of appeals reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, concluding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective in representing Defendant during his murder trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while defense counsel did make some mistakes at trial, those mistakes did not render his assistance ineffective. View "Commonwealth v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

In this declaratory judgment action the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on its action seeking to vindicate its right to contract with outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis, holding that the OAG is subject to the contracting-oversight requirements of the Model Procurement Code and that the Government Contract Review Committeee (Committee) of the Legislative Research Commission did not arbitrarily disapprove of the contingency-fee contract at issue in this case.The OAG contracted on a contingency-fee basis with a team of law firms to conduct investigation into and commence litigation on potential statutory violations arising out of the manufacture and distribution of prescription opioid products within the Commonwealth. The Committee recommended that William Landrum, the Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet, disapprove and cancel the contract. Landrum did as the Committee recommended. The OAG then brought this declaratory judgment action. The circuit court granted the OAG all the relief it sought. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Committee and Landrum did not act inappropriately in disapproving and canceling the contract. View "Landrum v. Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions but reversed and remanded for a new penalty phase, holding that palpable error occurred when the Commonwealth gave the jury incorrect parole eligibility information.Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary, second-degree assault, and second-degree wanton endangerment. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not commit palpable error by allowing certain hearsay testimony into evidence; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's requested instructions on second-degree burglary and first-degree criminal trespass; (3) did not err by providing instructions to the jury during deliberation; (4) committed palpable error by not correcting the Commonwealth's misstatement of Defendant's parole eligibility on the first-degree burglary charge; and (5) erred by limiting Defendant's testimony during the penalty phase. View "Beard v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) award of permanent partial disability benefits based on Employee's treating doctor's impairment rating, holding (1) Employee met his burden of proving the extent of the injury attributable to his work injury; but (2) the court of appeals erred in holding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(4) was not retroactive.Specifically, the Court held (1) the ALJ relied upon substantial evidence in finding Employee's work injury to be the combination of the exacerbation of a dormant pre-existing condition and a new injury; and (2) while the court of appeals was correct in addressing the retroactivity of section 342.703(4), the court erred in holding that the statute was not retroactive. The Court remanded this matter to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Holcim v. Swinford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing in part the judgment of the circuit court in favor of the Contestants in this will-contest case, holding that the court of appeals erred by failing to apply the appropriate standard of appellate review of the trial court's denial of the will-proponent's directed-verdict motion.In reversing the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Contestants, the court of appeals found that the Contestants' evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstated the jury's verdict on the will-contest issues but otherwise affirmed, holding that the court of appeals erred by failing to apply the appropriate standard of appellate review of the trial court's denial of the will proponent's directed verdict motion. View "Getty v. Getty" on Justia Law

In this workers' compensation enforcement action the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals dismissing in part and reversing in part the circuit court's order granting Appellant's third, fourth, and fifth motions for partial summary judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred in not dismissing Appellees' appeal from the portion of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Appellant on his third and fifth motions for partial summary judgment.Appellees, Appellant's employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier, appealed the circuit court's order granting Appellant's third, fourth, and fifth motions for partial summary judgment. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal from the portion of the order granting Appellant's fourth motion for partial summary judgment as an appeal from an interlocutory order, but it refused to dismiss the remainder of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals should have dismissed the appeal from the portions of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Appellant on his third and fifth motions for partial summary judgment, along with his fourth partial summary judgment motion, as being an appeal from a nonfinal order. View "Hampton v. Intech Contracting, LLC" on Justia Law