Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their suit challenging the validity of Senate Bill 151 (SB 151), holding that the passage of SB 151 did not comply with the three-readings requirement of section 46 of the Kentucky Constitution and that the legislation was, therefore, constitutionally invalid and declared void.SB 151 was passed during the 2018 session of the Kentucky General Assembly and purportedly made modifications to various state government employee pension plans, including pension plans for teachers, state police, and county employees. The circuit court voided the bill, holding that, in passing SB 151, the legislature violated section 46 by failing to give the bill a reading on three different days in each legislative chamber. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that SB 151, as finally enacted, never received the required three readings in either legislative chamber. View "Bevin v. Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err in enforcing Deed of Restrictions for Woodlawn Estates Subdivision Section II by granting judgment in favor of Don Hensley against Keith Gadd and JHT Properties, LLC (collectively, Gadd) on the basis that Gadd was renting private residences in the Subdivision as short-term vacation rentals in contravention of restrictions on commercial use of the property at issue.Hensley filed a complaint against Gadd alleging violations of the restrictions. Gadd filed a counterclaim for harassment. The trial court concluded that Gadd’s short-term rentals constituted a business in violation of the restrictions and dismissed Gadd’s harassment counterclaim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the restrictions were ambiguous in that they permitted rentals and should be construed in favor of the free use of property. The court, however, affirmed dismissal of Gadd’s counterclaim. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated so much of the court of appeals’ opinion as reversed the trial court’s judgment and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the restriction limited commercial uses and required the lots to be used for single-family residential purposes, and (2) Gadd’s use of the property violated the Deed of Restrictions. View "Hensley v. Gadd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing constitutional challenges to the validity of the Kentucky Right to Work Act, 2017 Ky. Acts ch. 1, 15, holding that the trial court did not err.In 2017, the Kentucky legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the Act. The Act amended Ky. Rev. Stat. 336.130(3) to provide that no employee is required to become, or remain, a member of a labor organization, or to pay dues, fees, or assessments to a labor organization. Plaintiff-unions filed an action challenging the Act on several Kentucky constitutional grounds. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that the Act violated the Kentucky Constitution’s provisions requiring equal protection of the laws, prohibiting special legislation, and prohibiting takings without compensation and that the Act was improperly designated as emergency legislation. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Unions’ constitutional challenges to the Act were without merit. View "Zuckerman v. Bevin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that because the Medical Review Panel Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. 216C delays access to the courts of the Commonwealth for the adjudication of common-law claims, chapter 216C violates Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution.This case presented a legal challenge to chapter 216C, which establishes a mandatory process to delay certain medical-malpractice claimants’ ability to access immediately the Commonwealth courts by creating medical-review panels and requiring a panel’s opinion about the merits of the claimant’s proposed complaint against health-care providers before the claimant may file suit. The trial court declared the Act unconstitutional on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that chapter 216C violates section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution, which acts as a restraint on the power of all departments of state government infringing on the right of the people to seek immediate recess for common-law personal-injury claims. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services, ex rel. Meier v. Claycomb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s petition for a writ to prohibit enforcement of a trial court’s order authorizing the use of public funds for the procurement of private-expert assistance in William Meece’s post-conviction proceedings under Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the use of public funds.Meece moved to vacate his judgment of conviction under Rule 11.42. Meece requested the use of private experts in proving his motion. The trial court granted in part and denied in part Meece’s public-funding request after holding an ex parte hearing. The Commonwealth then filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the trial court erred in authorizing the use of public funds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in holding the ex parte hearing to determine whether Meece was entitled to the requested state funds; and (2) the circuit court’s hearing to determine whether Meece was entitled to public funds for the procurement of private experts was not premature. View "Commonwealth v. Honorable John R. Grise" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal from the circuit court’s review of an agency ruling, the Supreme Court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s test for standing as set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992) and held that the existence of a plaintiff’s standing is a constitutional requirement to prosecute any action in the courts of the Commonwealth, including seeking judicial review of an administrative agency’s final order.The putative petitioner in this case, a Medicaid beneficiary (the patient), sought judicial review of a final order of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Human Services ruling that the patient lacked standing to pursue an appeal of an insurer’s denial of reimbursement to a hospital for the patient’s services. The hospital, acting as the patient’s representative, sought judicial review of the Cabinet’s final order. The circuit court denied the Cabinet and the insurer’s motions to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case, holding (1) Kentucky courts have the responsibility to ascertain whether a plaintiff has constitutional standing to pursue the case in court; and (2) under that test, the patient did not have the requisite constitutional standing to pursue her case in the courts of the Commonwealth. View "Commonwealth v. Sexton" on Justia Law

At issue was the implications of the statutory language found in Ky. Rev. Stat. 186A.220 to the sale of a vehicle that was involved in an accident that killed both Jonathan Elmore and Craig Armstrong.Charles Armstrong sued Martin Cadillac, Inc.; The Travelers Indemnity Company, Martin’s insurer; Elmore’s estate, and other parties for the wrongful death of his son, Craig. Elmore was driving the vehicle, and Craig was a passenger when the vehicle was involved in the accident. This litigation centered around who owned, operated, or was financially responsible for the vehicle Elmore was driving. The circuit court found that Elmore was the owner of the vehicle, and therefore, that Martin and Travelers were not financially liable for the loss. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment on all claims against Martin and Travelers, holding that, pursuant to section 186A. 220, Martin was not the “owner” of the vehicle, and therefore, Martin and Travelers were not responsible for coverage of the vehicle. View "Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain action challenging the just compensation paid for property to be taken, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals dismissing this appeal for failure to name an indispensable party, holding that Riley v. Department of Highways, 375 S.W.2d 245 (Ky. 1963), remains sound and applicable to the circumstances before the Court in this case.The court of appeals dismissed this appeal because the notice of appeal failed to include the name of Edward Gravell, the husband of one of Appellants, a tenant-in-common owning the property. The court of appeals reasoned that Edward’s interest, an inchoate right, would be affected by the appellate court’s decision, and thus, he was an indispensable party. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals’s decision was contrary to applicable precedent in Riley; and (2) Edward was not an indispensable party at this stage of the proceeding. View "Hagan v. Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court, after a jury trial, in favor of Appellant on her claim that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment with the University of Louisville in violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower Act (KWA), Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.101-61.103, holding that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict.After a jury trial, Appellant was awarded damages in the form of back pay and mental anguish, but the trial court denied Appellant’s claim for front pay. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on whistleblower liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, contrary to the opinion of the court of appeals, the evidence supported the verdict of the jury in finding liability against the University. View "Harper v. University of Louisville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeal reversing the circuit court’s interlocutory judgment concluding that Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) properly exercised its power of eminent domain in the taking of a permanent easement on Appellee’s land for the public purpose of constructing a storm water culvert and drainage system, holding that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.Specifically, the Court held that the court of appeals (1) failed to give appropriate deference to the circuit court’s finding that LFUCG acted in good faith; (2) improperly extended the holding in Sprint Communications v. Leggett, 307 S.W.3d 109 (Ky. 2010); and (3) failed to follow controlling precedent by requiring that local governments condemn property in fee simple when a lesser interest would be equally effective. View "Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Moore" on Justia Law